Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2018 16:56:38 -0400 From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Cc: Philip Homburg <philip.homburg@...e.net> Subject: Re: inet_ntop bug in 1.1.19 I think Philip somehow got un-Cc'd and missed further discussion: On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 08:37:24PM -0400, Rich Felker wrote: > On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 09:39:21PM +0300, Timo Teras wrote: > > On Mon, 04 Jun 2018 14:23:55 +0000 > > "Laurent Bercot" <ska-dietlibc@...rnet.org> wrote: > > > > > >inet_ntop doesn't conform to RFC 5952 (A Recommendation for IPv6 > > > >Address > > > >Text Representation). > > > > > > > >I attached a test program to demonstrate the issue and a patch: > > > >$ cc inet_ntop_test.c musl-1.1.19/src/network/inet_ntop.c > > > >$ ./a.out > > > >Section 4.2.2 test failed: got 2001:db8::1:1:1:1:1, expected > > > >2001:db8:0:1:1:1:1:1 > > > > > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5952#section-4.2.1 says: > > > "The use of the symbol "::" MUST be used to its maximum capability." > > > > > > 2001:db8::1:1:1:1:1 is the correct canonical text representation. > > > > The following section 4.2.2 says: > > > > 4.2.2. Handling One 16-Bit 0 Field > > > > The symbol "::" MUST NOT be used to shorten just one 16-bit 0 field. > > For example, the representation 2001:db8:0:1:1:1:1:1 is correct, but > > 2001:db8::1:1:1:1:1 is not correct. > > > > Looks like the test case is taken directly from this. > > Lovely -- 4.2.1 and 4.2.2 are outright conflicting. I suppose you're > expected to interpret 4.2.1 as "maximum capability subject to the > nonsensical additional constraint below". > > In any case, 4.2.2 probably makes things prettier to read even if it > does take an extra character. > > I checked and only RFC 2373 is actually normative for inet_pton (per > POSIX), but it doesn't contradict anything in RFC 5952 or provide any > preferred conventions for reverse mapping, so I think it's safe to > adopt the rule in 4.2.2 above. > > Sound ok? Arthur Jones subsequently submitted a slightly simpler patch which I'm applying. Let me know if anything still seems wrong. It now passes the test case. 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.