On Wed, Oct 05, 2022 at 03:38:09PM +0200, Laurent Vivier wrote:
> On 9/28/22 08:12, David Gibson wrote:
> > > @@ -253,9 +253,27 @@ static void net_stream_accept(void *opaque)
> > > s->fd = fd;
> > > s->nc.link_down = false;
> > > net_stream_connect(s);
> > > - snprintf(s->nc.info_str, sizeof(s->nc.info_str),
> > > - "connection from %s:%d",
> > > - inet_ntoa(saddr.sin_addr), ntohs(saddr.sin_port));
> > > + switch (saddr.ss_family) {
> > > + case AF_INET: {
> > > + struct sockaddr_in *saddr_in = (struct sockaddr_in *)&saddr;
> > > +
> > > + snprintf(s->nc.info_str, sizeof(s->nc.info_str),
> > > + "connection from %s:%d",
> > > + inet_ntoa(saddr_in->sin_addr),
> > > ntohs(saddr_in->sin_port));
> > So, here you print the address from which the connection has come -
> > the remote address.
> >
> > > + break;
> > > + }
> > > + case AF_UNIX: {
> > > + struct sockaddr_un saddr_un;
> > > +
> > > + len = sizeof(saddr_un);
> > > + getsockname(s->listen_fd, (struct sockaddr *)&saddr_un, &len);
> > > + snprintf(s->nc.info_str, sizeof(s->nc.info_str),
> > > + "connect from %s", saddr_un.sun_path);
> > Here you print the bound address - the local address. Does that make
> > sense? I mean, in almost every occasion the remote Unix socket will
> > be anonymous, so it probably doesn't make sense to display that, but
> > is the bound address actually a useful substitute?
> >
> > Maybe it should just be "connect from Unix socket".
> >
>
> I agree the needed information is "connected" and type "unix".
>
> But I think more information we can put here can be useful for a debugging
> purpose.
Fair enough. I feel like "connect from" is still possible
misleading. Maybe "connect via"? Or even "connection to Unix socket %s"?
--
David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_
| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
