Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 23:29:42 +0800 From: orc <orc@...server.ru> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Proposed roadmap to 1.0 On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 10:42:45 -0400 Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 10:14:10PM +0800, orc wrote: > > While building a file server/router I found some > > bugs/incompatibilities in getaddrinfo() and getifaddrs(). > > > > getaddrinfo() does not reports IPv6 available when asked with > > AF_UNSPEC. Thus, servers like openssh or tinc (vpn daemon) still > > bind only IPv4 socket when they configured to bind IPv4 and IPv6 > > sockets. > > Indeed, this is an oversight. > > > getifaddrs() does not returns AF_PACKET like glibc does, so list of > > all system interfaces is incomplete (does not shows inactive > > interfaces). > > Is there a use case you want this for? I remember when we added > getifaddrs this was discussed, and I was hesitant to add AF_PACKET > because it's using some deprecated version of some structure where the > fields are too small to store the values they're supposed to > represent. I'd have to look through the mailing list and/or IRC logs > to recall the details, though. I'm not entirely opposed to it if > there's a serious need, but at the time it seemed like a poorly > designed interface. I faced problem when I tried to build dhcpcd with musl. I dropped dhcpcd then, found simple default.script for udhcpc and forgot about any problems. > > > I attached patch for getaddrinfo() (adopt it if you need it) > > and test program. > > I think it could be cleaner/simpler but I might just commit it as-is > for now and wait to clean it up until the getaddrinfo cleanup/overhaul > which was scheduled for this release cycle but will get pushed back to > the next. Thanks for review. I think I can apply it now on server :) > > > I still have no any clues about getifaddrs(), but > > that is not critical. It is usually implemented with help of netlink > > (and possibly there is no other way, maybe some /proc file will > > give a list) > > musl's is entirely based on /proc because the netlink stuff is > undocumented, seemed really bloated, and I didn't want to risk pulling > in code that was inadvertently derived from GNU code. I tried already netlink and dropped it since udhcpc works nicely. I really agree that it is too opaque. > > Rich
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.