[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
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.
