Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 21 Feb 1997 00:48:12 +1100
From:      David Nugent <davidn@labs.usn.blaze.net.au>
To:        Darren Reed <avalon@coombs.anu.edu.au>
Cc:        freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: "connection refused"
Message-ID:  <19970221004812.00805@usn.blaze.net.au>
In-Reply-To: <199702201338.AAA00619@unique.usn.blaze.net.au>; from Darren Reed on Feb 02, 1997 at 12:36:59AM
References:  <19970221002216.09741@usn.blaze.net.au> <199702201338.AAA00619@unique.usn.blaze.net.au>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Feb 02, 1997 at 12:36:59AM, Darren Reed wrote:
> >   One can obtain user connection request data without confirming the con-
> >   nection by issuing a recvmsg(2) call with an msg_iovlen of 0 and a non-
> >   zero msg_controllen, or by issuing a getsockopt(2) request.  Similarly,
> >   one can provide user connection rejection information by issuing a
> >   sendmsg(2) call with providing only the control information, or by call-
> >   ing setsockopt(2).
> > 
> > Unless I'm reading this incorrectly, this is precisely what I'd like
> > to do. I just can work out how to do it. :-)
> 
> Try calling accept() with the host you want to accept from, rather
> than INADDR_ANY.

Hmm. Then I'll need multiple sockets, since there may be more
than one remote host. I guess that is feasible given that it
only moves the placement of fork(). But it also means leaving
around more processes just for enquiry.

> What does it say before that ?  A connection is ESTABLISHED before it
> comes back via accept().

Ok. Then recvmsg() should be used without (instead of) accept()?


Regards,

David Nugent - Unique Computing Pty Ltd - Melbourne, Australia
Voice +61-3-9791-9547  Data/BBS +61-3-9792-3507  3:632/348@fidonet
davidn@freebsd.org davidn@blaze.net.au http://www.blaze.net.au/~davidn/



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19970221004812.00805>