I see absolutely nothing security-related about this, but it is a
potential bug report, so we should consider it.
It's definitely not a security patch. That was a miscommunication.
I'd be glad to revise this *if* someone can confirm that EAGAIN is
portable and/or in some spec like POSIX.
According to Ahmon Dancy:
It's definitely not a security patch. That was a miscommunication.
I'd be glad to revise this *if* someone can confirm that EAGAIN is
portable and/or in some spec like POSIX.
The best I can do is confirm that EAGAIN exists on the following
operating
On Wed, 30 Jan 2002, Gilles Detillieux wrote:
aix 4.2
tru64 5.0a (where it is an alias for EWOULDBLOCK)
freebsd 4.0 (where EWOULDBLOCK is an alias for it)
hpux 10.20
irix 6.5 (where EWOULDBLOCK is an alias for it)
NeXTSTEP 2.1 (old Mach/BSD based system)
QNX 4.23 (POSIX-compliant
According to Geoff Hutchison:
So here's my suggestion for adapting the patch to the current
code. #ifndef EAGAIN will run the current code exactly. Otherwise, add a
check for EAGAIN to decide if we break and fail. It seems like the
smallest amount of change to the current 3.1.6 code.
According to Ahmon Dancy:
Hello there. I'm having trouble w/ htdig and it has led me to some
questions:
Are you the htdig maintainer?
I'm one of a few. See http://www.htdig.org/FAQ.html#q1.4 and 1.16.
If so, do you have an estimate on when the newer versions will become
production
According to Ahmon Dancy:
If so, do you have an estimate on when the newer versions will become
production quality? I'm using 3.1.5 w/ security patch right now and
I'm wondering if it would be pointless to submit a patch against it.
Well, I don't see this as a security patch as
I see absolutely nothing security-related about this, but it is a
potential bug report, so we should consider it.
At 10:53 AM -0600 1/29/02, Gilles Detillieux wrote:
status = ::connect(sock, (struct sockaddr *)server,
sizeof(server));
+if (status 0 errno == EAGAIN)
+
7 matches
Mail list logo
