[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2017 16:25:29 -0600
From: "A. Wilcox" <awilfox@...lielinux.org>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: The Great Big POSIX Conformance Thread [phase 1]
On 05/02/17 18:01, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 05, 2017 at 05:04:43PM -0600, A. Wilcox wrote:
>> getservbyport
>> -------------
>>
>> Non-conformance of this function was discussed on IRC. Rich Felker
>> had said he would apply the patch I wrote[1], but it has not been
>> applied yet. If there is an issue with said patch, please let me know
>> so that I may fix it.
>>
>>
>> [1]:
>> https://code.foxkit.us/adelie/patches/raw/master/sys-libs/musl/musl-1.1.15-posix-getservbyport.patch
>
> This patch probably needs to be checked better still. Knowing the
> legaycy get*by*_r interfaces, I suspect it's invalid to return without
> setting *res to something. Also it might be better to just check
> earlier (at the top) if the argument parses as a number, and bail
> immediately, rather than first doing all the work then throwing the
> result away.
In addition to my earlier comments in my last mail, I have found a
standard definition for getservbyport_r[1] and it states that on error,
*res shall be set to NULL. The function does this at the start[2], so I
think this patch should be conformant.
[1]:
http://refspecs.linux-foundation.org/LSB_5.0.0/LSB-Core-generic/LSB-Core-generic/baselib-getservbyport-r.html
[2]:
http://git.musl-libc.org/cgit/musl/tree/src/network/getservbyport_r.c#n23
Best,
--arw
--
A. Wilcox (awilfox)
Project Lead, Adélie Linux
http://adelielinux.org
View attachment "0001-getservbyport_r-return-ENOENT-if-service-not-found.patch" of type "text/x-patch" (1527 bytes)
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (820 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
