[lkml]   [2000]   [Oct]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: 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 ?


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:41    [W:0.092 / U:23.632 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site