This is the mail archive of the libc-hacker@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the glibc project.
Note that libc-hacker is a closed list. You may look at the archives of this list, but subscription and posting are not open.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
On Sun, Apr 08, Ulrich Drepper wrote: > Thorsten Kukuk <kukuk@suse.de> writes: > > > --- inet/rexec.c 2000/10/28 00:28:37 1.17 > > +++ inet/rexec.c 2001/04/07 14:47:40 > > @@ -117,8 +117,7 @@ > > } > > listen(s2, 1); > > sa2len = sizeof (sa2); > > - if (getsockname(s2, (struct sockaddr *)&sa2, &sa2len) < 0 || > > - sa2len != SA_LEN((struct sockaddr *)&sa2)) { > > + if (getsockname(s2, (struct sockaddr *)&sa2, &sa2len) < 0) { > > perror("getsockname"); > > (void) __close(s2); > > The only problem which exists here is that errno is not set if "only" > the size differs. The size test itself is correct, it was there in > some form or another forever. I've checked in a patch for that. That there was a check for ever means nothing. It is not necessary (or getsockname will fail) and prevents glibc from working in cases where it works without problems. And I don't think that the new return value is correct. I don't see where there should be a invalid argument ? Thorsten -- Thorsten Kukuk http://www.suse.de/~kukuk/ kukuk@suse.de SuSE GmbH Schanzaeckerstr. 10 90443 Nuernberg Linux is like a Vorlon. It is incredibly powerful, gives terse, cryptic answers and has a lot of things going on in the background.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |