Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] linux 2.9.10-rc1: Fix oops in unix_dgram_sendmsg when using SELinux and SOCK_SEQPACKET | From | Alan Cox <> | Date | Thu, 18 Nov 2004 16:45:14 +0000 |
| |
On Iau, 2004-11-18 at 03:42, James Morris wrote: > > Well, my reading of socket(2) suggests that it's _not_ supposed to work. > > sendto() on a non connected socket should fail with ENOTCONN.
Not entirely true at all. A network protocol can implement lazy binding and do implicit binding on the sendto. Other protocols might not actually have a receiving component so have no bind() functionality at all.
> According to the send(2) man page, we may return EISCONN if the address > and addr length are not NULL and zero. I think that the man page is > incorrect. Posix says that EISCONN means "A destination address was > specified and the socket is already connected", not "A destination address > was specified and the socket is connected mode". i.e. we should only > return EISCONN if the socket is in a connected state.
POSIX 1003.1g draft 6.4 permits a user to pass a "null" address for various things. Indeed some systems implement send() as sendto() with a NULL, 0 address component and some user space does likewise. It also has a lot to say on the other cases although I don't think it ever fully got past draft state.
You also want to look at TCP/IP illustrated to see some of the assumptions handed down from on high by BSD and which should not be broken.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |