[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: Bug: improperly bound listen addresses?
- To: or-talk@xxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: Bug: improperly bound listen addresses?
- From: grarpamp <grarpamp@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2008 00:35:19 -0400
- Delivered-to: archiver@xxxxxxxx
- Delivered-to: or-talk-outgoing@xxxxxxxx
- Delivered-to: or-talk@xxxxxxxx
- Delivery-date: Sat, 16 Aug 2008 00:35:27 -0400
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=P3IQUDml6vu/Ukm0WyCOcgiGnDdPFL4xozTwUFWQq0A=; b=HymwOJKLkwyIBYfjcSEBleEhznp5C6y6568b5N80x8UlRs2/sgFzxBJhIwQQnEj/m6 Nm14isGMJfcklUa5QVlVLW/o0uLjtkjRqUoDwPsVQ1UNiLozIlquh14eX+N4ggSTVzsS Ri3+COF7rBeZWhg0cl6iJb24ilVVInR9zSATY=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=uYVR4wxjY7p/oJO65RQiY0AnJsMN3JO0dSUObWSP9Hl3wMUby0TzbXs3J4dVS2tXvx qS/jRn8pOh9O0VnKwbmdRlPHDNd/oSzZpnvlgvB+/5u6HO6wYldnbhthP0KlMDVC9NrJ H2YBnmjKgZH0HtdY4f8iw51cF1yistsJrhZkI=
- In-reply-to: <200808081000.m78A0IfZ027048@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- References: <200808081000.m78A0IfZ027048@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Reply-to: or-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-or-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Okay. However, one of us is confused: you keep referring to a
> connection, yet the code you quoted above shows socket() called specifying
> SOCK_DGRAM, which means UDP, a connectionless protocol.
Forget about protocol. The socket()'s have been either
bind()'ed or connect()'ed. And thust they show up with
endpoints. That's what I'm referring to.
> >That 'bind [local]' would honor a new -DNSClientAddress option.
> >And optionally a new -DNSClientPort option. And since the name
> >'resolv.conf' confusingly implies use of the normal system resolver
> >routines, some clarity regarding its actual usage could be added
> >to the docs.
> Perhaps we could get Nick's and Roger's thoughts on that. My guess,
> though, is that their plates may still be overflowing with far higher
> priority issues, though perhaps it could be added to the wish list for
> the (probably far) future.
Was hoping for more discussion. Maybe I'll just open some
'bugs', now that the few things I noted are a bit narrower,
and leave them as placeholders. Wish there was a way to edit
the flyspray entries.