Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 14:50:27 GMT From: Hajimu UMEMOTO <ume@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: bin/84106: inet_pton(AF_INET6, ....) seems too permissive Message-ID: <200507271450.j6REoRos044192@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The following reply was made to PR bin/84106; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Hajimu UMEMOTO <ume@freebsd.org> To: Mikhail Teterin <mi+kde@aldan.algebra.com> Cc: FreeBSD-gnats-submit@freebsd.org, standards@freebsd.org Subject: Re: bin/84106: inet_pton(AF_INET6, ....) seems too permissive Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 23:42:57 +0900 Hi, >>>>> On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 09:03:27 -0400 >>>>> Mikhail Teterin <mi+kde@aldan.algebra.com> said: mi+kde> On Wednesday 27 July 2005 06:42 am, Hajimu UMEMOTO wrote: mi+kde> = mi> 1:2:3:4:5:6:7::8 mi+kde> = mi> or mi+kde> = mi> 1:2:3:4:5:6::7:8 mi+kde> = mi> inet_pton should reject (return 0) both of these addresses. mi+kde> = No, I don't think so. I cannot see such restriction in RFC 2373 2.2 mi+kde> = Text Representation of Addresses. Isn't it a problem of NSPR's mi+kde> = addtest? mi+kde> I thought, 8 positions is the most an IPv6 address can have. This mi+kde> strings have 9, don't they? Ah, yes. I didn't understand your point, correctly. Since it seems that this problem was fixed in BIND9's inet_pton.c, I've just commited the fix which was taken from it: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/lib/libc/net/inet_pton.c.diff?r1=1.11&r2=1.12 Please try it, and let me know the result. Sincerely, -- Hajimu UMEMOTO @ Internet Mutual Aid Society Yokohama, Japan ume@mahoroba.org ume@{,jp.}FreeBSD.org http://www.imasy.org/~ume/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200507271450.j6REoRos044192>