Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 11:18:05 +1100 From: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> To: Ian Lepore <ian@FreeBSD.org> Cc: "Alexander V. Chernikov" <melifaro@FreeBSD.org>, Ian Smith <smithi@nimnet.asn.au>, freebsd-ipfw <freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.org>, freebsd-stable <freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org>, Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@iet.unipi.it> Subject: Re: ipfw table add problem Message-ID: <20131126001806.27951AD3DBF@rock.dv.isc.org> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 25 Nov 2013 08:02:58 -0700." <1385391778.1220.4.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> References: <CAAcX-AGDZbFn5RmhLBBn2PPWRPcsFUnea5MgTc7nuXGD8Ge53A@mail.gmail.com> <52911993.8010108@ipfw.ru> <CAAcX-AEt_i8RUfmMy6WLnER0X=uLk5A1=oj911k-nyMJEghRLw@mail.gmail.com> <529259DE.2040701@FreeBSD.org> <20131125152238.S78756@sola.nimnet.asn.au> <1385391778.1220.4.camel@revolution.hippie.lan>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <1385391778.1220.4.camel@revolution.hippie.lan>, Ian Lepore writes: > On Mon, 2013-11-25 at 15:30 +1100, Ian Smith wrote: > > On Sun, 24 Nov 2013 23:56:14 +0400, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote: > > > On 24.11.2013 19:43, =D6zkan KIRIK wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > = > > > > > I tested patch. This patch solves, ipfw table 1 add 4899 > > > Ok. So I'll commit this fix soon. > > > > = > > > > > But, ipfw table 1 add 10.2.3.01 works incorrectly. > > > > output is below. > > > > # ./ipfw table 1 flush > > > > # ./ipfw table 1 add 10.2.3.01 > > > inet_pton() does not recognize this as valid IPv4 address, so it is > > > treated as usigned unteger key. It looks like this behavior is mention= > ed > > > in STANDARDS section. > > > > # ./ipfw table 1 list > > > > 0.0.0.10/32 0 > > = > > > I'm wondering if "so don't do that" is really sufficient to deal with = > > > this? If it's not recognised as a valid address, shouldn't it fail to = > > > add anything, with a complaint? I don't see how a string containing = > > > dots can be seen as a valid unsigned integer? > > It's still not clear to me that inet_pton() is doing the right thing. > Per the rfc cited earlier in the thread, it's not supposed to interpret > the digits as octal or hex -- they are specifically declared to be > decimal numbers. There's nothing invalid about "01" as a decimal > number. The fact that many of us have a C-programming background and > tend to think of leading-zero as implying octal doesn't change that. But it does result in unexpected results when there is code that does treat 070 as 56 not 70. Rejecting ambigious input is a good thing. Part of what inet_pton() was trying to do was to get rid of the ambiguity in address inputs by tightening up the specification. 10.2.3.70 is not ambigious 10.2.3.070 is ambigious Mark > -- Ian > > > > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20131126001806.27951AD3DBF>