Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 13:59:25 -0700 (PDT) From: Archie Cobbs <archie@whistle.com> To: njs3@doc.ic.ac.uk (Niall Smart) Cc: fenner@parc.xerox.com, julian@whistle.com, nate@almond.elite.net, freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Apparent bug in sendto() with raw sockets Message-ID: <199806262059.NAA01163@bubba.whistle.com> In-Reply-To: <E0ypYBC-0005Qv-00@oak67.doc.ic.ac.uk> from Niall Smart at "Jun 26, 98 02:04:38 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Niall Smart writes: > On Jun 25, 11:40am, Bill Fenner wrote: > } Subject: Re: Apparent bug in sendto() with raw sockets > > In message <Pine.BSF.3.95.980625101801.21522C-100000@current1.whistle.com>you w > > interface, which requires length and offset in host order. AFAIK, > > this original implementation happened on suns, which is why nobody > > noticed at the time. We are compatible with this original > > implementation. OpenBSD and Linux chose to change the semantics > > to the ones that are less surprising but not backwards compatible. > > I think its more important to be correct in this area, raw sockets > programming can be tricky enough without what will seem to the > user like gratuitous changes. If Linux and OpenBSD have done it, > thats all the more reason to go for it... I agree.. and there's a precedent for this. The BPF code had a similar bug, where you would read an IP packet and get some of the header fields reversed. This was fixed in FreeBSD sometime in the Summer of '96 I believe (north america, that is :-) -Archie ___________________________________________________________________________ Archie Cobbs * Whistle Communications, Inc. * http://www.whistle.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-bugs" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199806262059.NAA01163>