Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2003 14:23:54 -0500 (CDT) From: Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com> To: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: connect(2) behavior with unreacheable hosts Message-ID: <20030413142156.O44423@odysseus.silby.com> In-Reply-To: <20030412.212059.42399637.imp@bsdimp.com> References: <109.225ca595.2bc723f2@aol.com> <20030412.204912.76964336.imp@bsdimp.com> <20030412.212059.42399637.imp@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 12 Apr 2003, M. Warner Losh wrote: > In message: <20030413030500.GA64896@pit.databus.com> > Barney Wolff <barney@pit.databus.com> writes: > : On Sat, Apr 12, 2003 at 08:49:12PM -0600, M. Warner Losh wrote: > : > In message: <109.225ca595.2bc723f2@aol.com> > : > BelletJr@aol.com writes: > : > : Why does not connect(2) return any error when trying to connect to a host > : > : unreachable because of an infinite loop in the routes? No time-out occurs and > : > : the value 0 is returned by connect(2). > : > > : > Hmmmmm, you are correct. I was sure that you were nuts, but on > : > -current the following program returns no error at all... Telnet > : > shows the same behavior. This is clearly wrong. > : > : It's not just current; stable behaves exactly the same. The problem is > : that the icmp time-exceeded packet gets translated into an error code > : of 0, which confuses things. I've filed a PR with a suggested fix: > : http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=50839 > > Ah. I see. I wonder if any of the net folks can review this... > > Warner EPLATEFULL, but it sounds correct... Barney, have you tried doing some sort of test where sendmail or ftpd tries making a connection to a TTL exceeded IP? I'm curious if they handle the situation gracefully or not. (If they don't, then maybe this is serious enough to require security branch merges.) Mike "Silby" Silbersack
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030413142156.O44423>