[lkml]   [2000]   [Oct]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: bind() allowed to non-local addresses
Date said:
> There is NOT a bug in the JVM code that handles
> et. Don't you find it a little compelling that the nearly identical
> JVM code passes the Java Compatibility test suite on Linux 2.2,
> Solaris, HPUX, SCO, and even Windows?

If the JVM spec says that it 'MUST' fail when used on a non-local address,
and the POSIX spec for bind does not say that it 'MUST' fail, then yes,
there is a bug in the JVM if it assumes that the two are compatible.

The fact that they just happen to behave the same in certain phases of the
moon and on other operating systems is not relevant.

We may decide that we want to pander to this brokenness, especially given
the widespread nature of the false assumption that bind() will fail when
given a non-local address. But that doesn't make the JVM non-broken.


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:0.155 / U:20.340 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site