Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 12:28:55 -0600 From: Jonathan Lemon <jlemon@flugsvamp.com> To: Archie Cobbs <archie@dellroad.org> Cc: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org>, Jonathan Lemon <jlemon@flugsvamp.com>, net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [itojun@iijlab.net: accept(2) behavior with tcp RST right after handshake] Message-ID: <20010212122855.A92213@prism.flugsvamp.com> In-Reply-To: <200102121756.JAA71541@curve.dellroad.org> References: <20010211165612.A3148@mollari.cthul.hu> <200102121756.JAA71541@curve.dellroad.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 09:56:26AM -0800, Archie Cobbs wrote: > Kris Kennaway writes: > > Did you guys agree on a commit-worthy fix yet? > > I wasn't party to the issue that generated this thread in the first > place, but.. I think the concensus is that if accept(2) returns > an error then this will break some applications, so instead it > should return a socket which will itself return an error on the > first operation. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong. No, as this is the current behavior. The change will be for accept to return an error, on the basis that 1) most apps already do the wrong thing now anyway, and 2) it brings us closer to a 'standard', e.g.: what other systems are doing as well. I was planning on committing the change soon, but there isn't really any hurry; effectively all it does is change the mechanism of error reporting from one form to another. -- Jonathan To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010212122855.A92213>