Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 15:09:10 +0800 From: orc <orc@...server.ru> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] inet_ntop() and ipv4 address On Thu, 25 Jul 2013 02:54:33 -0400 Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 02:42:12PM +0800, orc wrote: > > On Thu, 25 Jul 2013 01:59:13 -0400 > > Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx> wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 12:21:27PM +0800, orc wrote: > > > > inet_ntop() does not embed plain ipv4 address at end (like > > > > "::ffff:10.0.0.1"). This patch fixes it, but it is a bit ugly. > > > > Without it is a bit harder to read logs of some daemons that > > > > support only one address family socket binding and seeing > > > > output of 'ss -tn'. Adopt if needed. > > > > > > As I understand it, the "IPv4 compatible" addresses (::a.b.c.d) > > > are deprecated and have never actually been used in deployed > > > IPv6. Only the v4-mapped form (::ffff:a.b.c.d) is used/usable. > > > For the most part, supporting the useless form seems harmless, > > > but there is one harmful case: it looks like your code will > > > wrongly convert :: to ::0.0.0.0 instead of plain ::. Is it worth > > > trying to keep the "v4 compatible" form supported and just > > > special-casing ::, or should we just drop it? > > > > I think it's still worth supporting ::ffff:a.b.c.d form, just quote > > from my vsftpd logs: > > Oh I agree the ::ffff:a.b.c.d form is worth supporting. I was asking > if there's any need to also support the ::a.b.c.d form, which would > require a special workaround for ::. > > Rich If it needs hacks that don't worth implementing, then no. Can't remember where I seen ::a.b.c.d last time.
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.