Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 19 Oct 2000 01:30:08 +0200 | From | Andi Kleen <> | Subject | Re: bind() allowed to non-local addresses |
| |
On Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 05:20:22PM -0600, Matt Peterson wrote: > Your argument for supporting dynamic interfaces is valid, I really like > the idea of being able to bind to an interface that is not up yet. I can > definitely see where this would be helpful -- too bad is is not part of > the spec. What I don't like about it is that it may break existing > applications. Is the Socket spec so loose that Linux 2.4 can be > comfortable in its current condition? I hope not. > > Since it is possible that this "bug" un-repairably breaks the > portability of our application (a Java virtual machine) to the new > kernel, I suspect that there may be other applications that it breaks > too.
Could you explain how the JVM breaks exactly ?
-Andi
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |