FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Debian > Debian Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 04-26-2010, 09:03 PM
Don Armstrong
 
Default bindv6only again

On Mon, 26 Apr 2010, Salvo Tomaselli wrote:
> On Monday 26 April 2010 21:59:08 Don Armstrong wrote:
> > It doesn't matter who sets it. If the program doesn't work properly
> > with either setting, and it's possible for it to work properly with
> > either setting by patching the code, it's a bug that should be fixed.
>
> It matters because in my view, the app expects it to be 0 unless the
> application itself had changed it.

It's a system wide default which can be changed by the administrator
or by Debian. If the code fails when that default is changed, the code
is buggy.

There's no reason for the code to rely on a particular setting of the
default when it can easily enforce the particular value that it only
works with.


Don Armstrong

--
You could say she lived on the edge... Well, maybe not exactly on the edge,
just close enough to watch other people fall off.
-- hugh macleod http://www.gapingvoid.com/Moveable_Type/archives/000309.html

http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20100426210322.GB21525@teltox.donarmstrong.com">ht tp://lists.debian.org/20100426210322.GB21525@teltox.donarmstrong.com
 
Old 04-26-2010, 09:21 PM
Salvo Tomaselli
 
Default bindv6only again

On Monday 26 April 2010 23:03:22 Don Armstrong wrote:
> It's a system wide default which can be changed by the administrator
> or by Debian. If the code fails when that default is changed, the code
> is buggy.
>
> There's no reason for the code to rely on a particular setting of the
> default when it can easily enforce the particular value that it only
> works with.
Can you indicate me which part of the standard says that?

Bye
--
Salvo Tomaselli


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 201004262321.55962.tiposchi@tiscali.it">http://lists.debian.org/201004262321.55962.tiposchi@tiscali.it
 
Old 04-26-2010, 10:50 PM
Matthew Johnson
 
Default bindv6only again

On Mon Apr 26 23:21, Salvo Tomaselli wrote:
> On Monday 26 April 2010 23:03:22 Don Armstrong wrote:
> > It's a system wide default which can be changed by the administrator
> > or by Debian. If the code fails when that default is changed, the code
> > is buggy.
> >
> > There's no reason for the code to rely on a particular setting of the
> > default when it can easily enforce the particular value that it only
> > works with.
> Can you indicate me which part of the standard says that?
>

If POSIX-compliant apps may only work with one setting then the standard would
say "only this setting is compliant with POSIX". Since it does not, we must
assume that a sysadmin choosing either value results in a POSIX-compliant
system. If an application fails to work on such a system it must ipso facto not
be POSIX-compliant and hence buggy.

Matt

--
Matthew Johnson
 
Old 04-26-2010, 11:26 PM
Ben Hutchings
 
Default bindv6only again

On Mon, 2010-04-26 at 23:50 +0100, Matthew Johnson wrote:
> On Mon Apr 26 23:21, Salvo Tomaselli wrote:
> > On Monday 26 April 2010 23:03:22 Don Armstrong wrote:
> > > It's a system wide default which can be changed by the administrator
> > > or by Debian. If the code fails when that default is changed, the code
> > > is buggy.
> > >
> > > There's no reason for the code to rely on a particular setting of the
> > > default when it can easily enforce the particular value that it only
> > > works with.
> > Can you indicate me which part of the standard says that?
> >
>
> If POSIX-compliant apps may only work with one setting then the standard would
> say "only this setting is compliant with POSIX". Since it does not, we must
> assume that a sysadmin choosing either value results in a POSIX-compliant
> system. If an application fails to work on such a system it must ipso facto not
> be POSIX-compliant and hence buggy.

POSIX and SUS define the behaviour an OS must provide to applications,
not to the administrator. In these contexts. 'default value' normally
means the value that will be used unless the application overrides it.
Linux provides many options to deviate from POSIX-conformance, and there
are sometimes good reasons to use them (for example the relatime mount
option), but we should be wary of doing so.

Ben.

--
Ben Hutchings
Once a job is fouled up, anything done to improve it makes it worse.
 
Old 04-27-2010, 07:15 AM
Florian Weimer
 
Default bindv6only again

* Julien Cristau:

> +#if defined(ENABLE_IPV6) && defined(IPV6_V6ONLY)
> + if (ai->ai_family == AF_INET6) {
> + int zero = 0;
> + if (setsockopt(sock, IPPROTO_IPV6, IPV6_V6ONLY, &zero, sizeof(zero)) < 0)
> + g_warning("setsockopt(IPV6_V6ONLY): %s", g_strerror(errno));
> + }
> +#endif
> +

Isn't it a bug in getaddrinfo that it doesn't do that on its own? Or
does it return multiple sockets in this case?


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: E1O6f0i-0001gT-Lm@mid.deneb.enyo.de">http://lists.debian.org/E1O6f0i-0001gT-Lm@mid.deneb.enyo.de
 
Old 04-27-2010, 09:59 AM
Juliusz Chroboczek
 
Default bindv6only again

> If POSIX-compliant apps may only work with one setting then the standard would
> say "only this setting is compliant with POSIX". Since it does not,

Yes it does. Section 2.10.20, see the paragraph titled "Compatibility
with IPv4".

You might argue that having this in the POSIX standard is a mistake, but
it is perfectly clear to anyone even vaguely competent that when
bindv6only is true, Linux is not compliant with the "IPV6" option to
POSIX.

> we must assume that a sysadmin choosing either value results in
> a POSIX-compliant system. If an application fails to work on such
> a system it must ipso facto not be POSIX-compliant and hence buggy.

Please stop bluffing.

Juliusz
 
Old 04-27-2010, 10:07 AM
Juliusz Chroboczek
 
Default bindv6only again

>> The apparent consensus is being ignored -- the default value is still

> - nobody cares about the consensus in the peanut gallery

I am not quite sure what to do with this sentence.

You have single-handedly broken peoples' systems, with no advance
warning. When people have complained, you have either ignored them or
bullied them (in #56023, you use phraseology such as "you do not
understand well sockets programming" in response to a helpful and
reasonable commenter), and now you're saying that Julien Cristau is "the
peanut gallery".

Marco, this is not the way things are done.

> - as explained in #560238, it is still not the time to make a choice

But you're breaking peoples' systems *now*. And breaking systems
tracking *testing*, not unstable!

Juliusz
 
Old 04-27-2010, 10:44 AM
Samuel Thibault
 
Default bindv6only again

Florian Weimer, le Tue 27 Apr 2010 09:15:12 +0200, a écrit :
> * Julien Cristau:
>
> > +#if defined(ENABLE_IPV6) && defined(IPV6_V6ONLY)
> > + if (ai->ai_family == AF_INET6) {
> > + int zero = 0;
> > + if (setsockopt(sock, IPPROTO_IPV6, IPV6_V6ONLY, &zero, sizeof(zero)) < 0)
> > + g_warning("setsockopt(IPV6_V6ONLY): %s", g_strerror(errno));
> > + }
> > +#endif
> > +
>
> Isn't it a bug in getaddrinfo that it doesn't do that on its own?

How could it? getaddrinfo doesn't deal with sockets, only with
addresses.

> Or does it return multiple sockets in this case?

It doesn't return sockets, it returns addresses. If a hostname has both
an IPv4 and an IPv6 record, getaddrinfo will return both an AF_INET
address and an AF_INET6 address.

Samuel


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20100427104423.GM2209@const.famille.thibault.fr">h ttp://lists.debian.org/20100427104423.GM2209@const.famille.thibault.fr
 
Old 04-27-2010, 11:39 AM
Simon Huggins
 
Default bindv6only again

On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 09:46:48PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> - as explained in #560238, it is still not the time to make a choice

Not sure what you mean here.

Anyway, is there a reason that #560238 isn't blocked by #560044 given it
breaks that package or are you not bothered about breaking non-free
software?

Simon.

--
Just another wannabie | "I get mail; therefore I am." | Just another fool
----------------------+ - Dilbert +-------------------
This message was brought to you by the letter H and the number 20.
htag.pl 0.0.24 -- http://www.earth.li/projectpurple/progs/htag.html
 
Old 04-27-2010, 11:40 AM
 
Default bindv6only again

On Apr 27, Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@pps.jussieu.fr> wrote:

> reasonable commenter), and now you're saying that Julien Cristau is "the
> peanut gallery".
No, I am not.

> But you're breaking peoples' systems *now*. And breaking systems
Which ones? There is only one bug open (gdm) and it has patches.

Based on this data I believe that the change has been a great success,
the only hard issue has been the one with the java packages.

> tracking *testing*, not unstable!
It is unfortunate that the package migrated to testing while it had an
RC bug open, but it happened long ago and the sky has not fallen yet so
I do not believe that this is a major concern.

--
ciao,
Marco
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 05:28 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org