Re: Resolver doesn't like 1.2.3.04 in /etc/hosts
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005, Mark Andrews wrote: On 2005-10-26, Mark Andrews wrote: Leading zeros are ambigious. Some platforms treat them as octal others treat them as decimal. There is nothing ambiguous about the example provided. (Perhaps it wasn't a good example, but it's always a bug if '04' is not correctly decoded, regardless of the numeric base in use.) You want a ambigious example? 192.168.222.012 It amazed me that no RFC ever appears to have standardised this format (although it is alluded to in passing as being decimal in various other places). Eg, 1035 has: [[[ The RDATA section of an A line in a master file is an Internet address expressed as four decimal numbers separated by dots without any imbedded spaces (e.g., 10.2.0.52 or 192.0.5.6). ]]] (although that's DNS zone file format, not /etc/hosts.) It's much easier to just reject octal and hexadecimal than to work out when and when not it is ambigious. It is also better to demand all 4 octets. It also generates less support complaints. I'm happy to reject octal and hex too! Anyway, count this as one (minor) support gripe :-) Thanks for your time, jan -- jan grant, ILRT, University of Bristol. http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/ Tel +44 (0)117 3317661 http://ioctl.org/jan/ stty intr ^m ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Resolver doesn't like 1.2.3.04 in /etc/hosts
man inet_addr and you'll find: All numbers supplied as ``parts'' in a `.' notation may be decimal, octal, or hexadecimal, as specified in the C language (i.e., a leading 0x or 0X implies hexadecimal; otherwise, a leading 0 implies octal; otherwise, the number is interpreted as decimal). So a leading zero means hex. Stop trying to make it look pretty. Standards are a good thing and need to be followed. Jan Grant wrote: *** This message has been scanned by the InterScan for CSC-SSM and found to be free of known security risks. ***-*** On Thu, 27 Oct 2005, Mark Andrews wrote: On 2005-10-26, Mark Andrews wrote: Leading zeros are ambigious. Some platforms treat them as octal others treat them as decimal. There is nothing ambiguous about the example provided. (Perhaps it wasn't a good example, but it's always a bug if '04' is not correctly decoded, regardless of the numeric base in use.) You want a ambigious example? 192.168.222.012 It amazed me that no RFC ever appears to have standardised this format (although it is alluded to in passing as being decimal in various other places). Eg, 1035 has: [[[ The RDATA section of an A line in a master file is an Internet address expressed as four decimal numbers separated by dots without any imbedded spaces (e.g., 10.2.0.52 or 192.0.5.6). ]]] (although that's DNS zone file format, not /etc/hosts.) It's much easier to just reject octal and hexadecimal than to work out when and when not it is ambigious. It is also better to demand all 4 octets. It also generates less support complaints. I'm happy to reject octal and hex too! Anyway, count this as one (minor) support gripe :-) Thanks for your time, jan -- __ Paul T. Root /_ \ 1977 MGB / /|| \\ ||\/ || _ | || || || \ ||__// \__/ ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Resolver doesn't like 1.2.3.04 in /etc/hosts
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005, Paul T. Root wrote: man inet_addr and you'll find: All numbers supplied as ``parts'' in a `.' notation may be decimal, octal, or hexadecimal, as specified in the C language (i.e., a leading 0x or 0X implies hexadecimal; otherwise, a leading 0 implies octal; otherwise, the number is interpreted as decimal). So a leading zero means hex. Stop trying to make it look pretty. Standards are a good thing and need to be followed. I also found: [[[ STANDARDS The inet_ntop() and inet_pton() functions conform to X/Open Networking Services Issue 5.2 (``XNS5.2''). Note that inet_pton() does not accept 1-, 2-, or 3-part dotted addresses; all four parts must be specified and are interpreted only as decimal values. This is a narrower input set than that accepted by inet_aton(). ]]] on that same man page :-) Cheers, jan PS. I only raised the issue in case anyone else was bitten by it (which is why a PR might be handy). Having fixed /etc/hosts, I don't think this is worth wasting more energy on. ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Resolver doesn't like 1.2.3.04 in /etc/hosts
Jan Grant wrote: *** This message has been scanned by the InterScan for CSC-SSM and found to be free of known security risks. ***-*** On Thu, 27 Oct 2005, Paul T. Root wrote: man inet_addr and you'll find: All numbers supplied as ``parts'' in a `.' notation may be decimal, octal, or hexadecimal, as specified in the C language (i.e., a leading 0x or 0X implies hexadecimal; otherwise, a leading 0 implies octal; otherwise, the number is interpreted as decimal). So a leading zero means hex. Stop trying to make it look pretty. Standards are a good thing and need to be followed. I also found: [[[ STANDARDS The inet_ntop() and inet_pton() functions conform to X/Open Networking Services Issue 5.2 (``XNS5.2''). Note that inet_pton() does not accept 1-, 2-, or 3-part dotted addresses; all four parts must be specified and are interpreted only as decimal values. This is a narrower input set than that accepted by inet_aton(). ]]] on that same man page :-) Sure but the hosts(5) man page says that it follows inet_addr(3) spec. Sorry, I neglected to put that little leap in. Cheers, jan PS. I only raised the issue in case anyone else was bitten by it (which is why a PR might be handy). Having fixed /etc/hosts, I don't think this is worth wasting more energy on. Yeah, you're right there. -- __ Paul T. Root /_ \ 1977 MGB / /|| \\ ||\/ || _ | || || || \ ||__// \__/ ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Resolver doesn't like 1.2.3.04 in /etc/hosts
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005, Paul T. Root wrote: Jan Grant wrote: On Thu, 27 Oct 2005, Paul T. Root wrote: man inet_addr and you'll find: All numbers supplied as ``parts'' in a `.' notation may be decimal, octal, or hexadecimal, as specified in the C language (i.e., a leading 0x or 0X implies hexadecimal; otherwise, a leading 0 implies octal; otherwise, the number is interpreted as decimal). So a leading zero means hex. Stop trying to make it look pretty. Standards are a good thing and need to be followed. [ STANDARDS section from the man page snipped ] Sure but the hosts(5) man page says that it follows inet_addr(3) spec. Sorry, I neglected to put that little leap in. You're right. So, we appear to agree that either the man page for hosts(5) is in need of an update, or the resolver is currently not conforming to the described behaviour? Since 1.2.3.04foo is currently an illegal /etc/hosts entry. Cheers, -- jan grant, ILRT, University of Bristol. http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/ Tel +44 (0)117 3317661 http://ioctl.org/jan/ They modified their trousers secretly. ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Resolver doesn't like 1.2.3.04 in /etc/hosts
I don't know whether this is worth filing a PR for, but it seems the resolver no longer likes leading zeroes in an IP4 address in /etc/hosts. The change (in 5- ) appeared sometime in the last month or two. Personally I'm inclined to view this as a regression although it's simple enough to work around. Leading zeros are ambigious. Some platforms treat them as octal others treat them as decimal. Mark Cheers, jan -- jan grant, ILRT, University of Bristol. http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/ Tel +44 (0)117 3317661 http://ioctl.org/jan/ Unfortunately, I have a very good idea how fast my keys are moving. ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Resolver doesn't like 1.2.3.04 in /etc/hosts
On 2005-10-26, Mark Andrews wrote: Leading zeros are ambigious. Some platforms treat them as octal others treat them as decimal. There is nothing ambiguous about the example provided. (Perhaps it wasn't a good example, but it's always a bug if '04' is not correctly decoded, regardless of the numeric base in use.) ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Resolver doesn't like 1.2.3.04 in /etc/hosts
On 2005-10-26, Mark Andrews wrote: Leading zeros are ambigious. Some platforms treat them as octal others treat them as decimal. There is nothing ambiguous about the example provided. (Perhaps it wasn't a good example, but it's always a bug if '04' is not correctly decoded, regardless of the numeric base in use.) Not to belittle the point, but '04' is invalid for base-2/3/4. -- Matt Emmerton ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Resolver doesn't like 1.2.3.04 in /etc/hosts
On 2005-10-26, Matt Emmerton wrote: On 2005-10-26, Mark Andrews wrote: Leading zeros are ambigious. Some platforms treat them as octal others treat them as decimal. There is nothing ambiguous about the example provided. (Perhaps it wasn't a good example, but it's always a bug if '04' is not correctly decoded, regardless of the numeric base in use.) Not to belittle the point, but '04' is invalid for base-2/3/4. The bases discussed here were 8 and 10; my comment applied to them. As for base 3, I don't care what you write using it, I won't be bothering about it. ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Resolver doesn't like 1.2.3.04 in /etc/hosts
On 2005-10-26, Mark Andrews wrote: Leading zeros are ambigious. Some platforms treat them as octal others treat them as decimal. There is nothing ambiguous about the example provided. (Perhaps it wasn't a good example, but it's always a bug if '04' is not correctly decoded, regardless of the numeric base in use.) You want a ambigious example? 192.168.222.012 Seen this sort of thing in real life when the admin wanted to make the file look pretty and they wanted 12 for the last octet not 10. Seen boxes that used %03u.%03u.%03u.%03u to print out the octets. It's much easier to just reject octal and hexadecimal than to work out when and when not it is ambigious. It is also better to demand all 4 octets. It also generates less support complaints. Mark ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
