On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 11:57:57PM +0100, Philip Blundell wrote:
> On Tue, 2002-10-22 at 12:54, Ben Collins wrote:
> > Speaking of which, I thought the USAGI guys had a patch to make 2.2.x
> > work correctly anyway?
>
> Not that I remember. I think USAGI gave up IPv6 on 2.2 as a lost cause
> some
On Tue, 2002-10-22 at 12:54, Ben Collins wrote:
> Speaking of which, I thought the USAGI guys had a patch to make 2.2.x
> work correctly anyway?
Not that I remember. I think USAGI gave up IPv6 on 2.2 as a lost cause
some time ago. It would be worth checking, though.
p.
On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 11:57:57PM +0100, Philip Blundell wrote:
> On Tue, 2002-10-22 at 12:54, Ben Collins wrote:
> > Speaking of which, I thought the USAGI guys had a patch to make 2.2.x
> > work correctly anyway?
>
> Not that I remember. I think USAGI gave up IPv6 on 2.2 as a lost cause
> some
On Tue, 2002-10-22 at 12:54, Ben Collins wrote:
> Speaking of which, I thought the USAGI guys had a patch to make 2.2.x
> work correctly anyway?
Not that I remember. I think USAGI gave up IPv6 on 2.2 as a lost cause
some time ago. It would be worth checking, though.
p.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, e
On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 12:13:34PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 07:44:40AM -0700, Jeff Bailey wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 09:26:31AM -0500, Colin Watson wrote:
> > > Is there any compromise we can reach *without* applying hacks that
> > > cover up the fact that glibc
On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 07:44:40AM -0700, Jeff Bailey wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 09:26:31AM -0500, Colin Watson wrote:
> > Is there any compromise we can reach *without* applying hacks that
> > cover up the fact that glibc doesn't cope with the differently-sized
> > kernel structure?
>
> Hal
On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 12:13:34PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 07:44:40AM -0700, Jeff Bailey wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 09:26:31AM -0500, Colin Watson wrote:
> > > Is there any compromise we can reach *without* applying hacks that
> > > cover up the fact that glibc
On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 07:44:40AM -0700, Jeff Bailey wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 09:26:31AM -0500, Colin Watson wrote:
> > Is there any compromise we can reach *without* applying hacks that
> > cover up the fact that glibc doesn't cope with the differently-sized
> > kernel structure?
>
> Hal
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 10:35:50AM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 10:49:06AM +0100, Jonathan Amery wrote:
> > Ben Collins wrote:
> > > On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 09:50:10PM +0100, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> > > > ssh is using getpeername() in accordance with the manual. The
> > > > s
On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 07:44:40AM -0700, Jeff Bailey wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 09:26:31AM -0500, Colin Watson wrote:
>
> > Is there any compromise we can reach *without* applying hacks that
> > cover up the fact that glibc doesn't cope with the differently-sized
> > kernel structure?
>
>
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 16:36:50 -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 09:06:03PM +0100, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> > For the avoidance of doubt, this is the same problem as reported in
> > 82468[1] (which was closed "this ssh/libc bug is long since gone"
> > without any fix being applie
On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 10:56:45AM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> > Half tongue-in-cheek, half not: Is 2.2 a supported kernel for the
> > sarge release? Since the 2.4 series has stabilized, it might be
> > time to put thoughts into just telling people that 2.4 is Good And
> > Right.
> For a lot of
On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 07:44:40AM -0700, Jeff Bailey wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 09:26:31AM -0500, Colin Watson wrote:
>
> > Is there any compromise we can reach *without* applying hacks that
> > cover up the fact that glibc doesn't cope with the differently-sized
> > kernel structure?
>
>
On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 09:26:31AM -0500, Colin Watson wrote:
> Is there any compromise we can reach *without* applying hacks that
> cover up the fact that glibc doesn't cope with the differently-sized
> kernel structure?
Half tongue-in-cheek, half not: Is 2.2 a supported kernel for the
sarge rel
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 16:36:50 -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 09:06:03PM +0100, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> > For the avoidance of doubt, this is the same problem as reported in
> > 82468[1] (which was closed "this ssh/libc bug is long since gone"
> > without any fix being applie
> Since you're saying that glibc doesn't want to work around a kernel bug,
> I'm sure you can appreciate that we aren't keen on working around what
> we see as an inadequacy in glibc either. The mutual unwillingness to
> perpetrate workarounds is why this argument has dragged on for so many
> month
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 10:35:50AM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 10:49:06AM +0100, Jonathan Amery wrote:
> > Ben Collins wrote:
> > > On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 09:50:10PM +0100, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> > > > ssh is using getpeername() in accordance with the manual. The
> > > > s
On Thursday, October 17, 2002, at 12:04 PM, Ben Collins wrote:
Glibc expects the correct data from the kernel. So by your logic, the
kernel has the bug, ultimately.
Fine by me. If the kernel is breaking its interface with glibc, then
that's a kernel bug.
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 11:53:20AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
>
> On Thursday, October 17, 2002, at 10:35 AM, Ben Collins wrote:
>
> >No, sshd should be checking the validity of the data that is returned
> >to
> >it.
>
> If a program makes a correct library call to glibc, and glibc return
On Thursday, October 17, 2002, at 10:35 AM, Ben Collins wrote:
No, sshd should be checking the validity of the data that is returned
to
it.
If a program makes a correct library call to glibc, and glibc returns a
result code that indicates success, and yet returns data the
contradicts the relevan
On Thursday, October 17, 2002, at 12:04 PM, Ben Collins wrote:
Glibc expects the correct data from the kernel. So by your logic, the
kernel has the bug, ultimately.
Fine by me. If the kernel is breaking its interface with glibc, then
that's a kernel bug.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL P
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 10:49:06AM +0100, Jonathan Amery wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 09:50:10PM +0100, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> > > [Please preserve the X-Debbugs-CC line]
> ^^^
> > > Ben Collins writes:
> > > > And as I've said in the past numerous ti
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 11:53:20AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
>
> On Thursday, October 17, 2002, at 10:35 AM, Ben Collins wrote:
>
> >No, sshd should be checking the validity of the data that is returned
> >to
> >it.
>
> If a program makes a correct library call to glibc, and glibc return
On Thursday, October 17, 2002, at 10:35 AM, Ben Collins wrote:
No, sshd should be checking the validity of the data that is returned
to
it.
If a program makes a correct library call to glibc, and glibc returns a
result code that indicates success, and yet returns data the
contradicts the rel
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 10:49:06AM +0100, Jonathan Amery wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 09:50:10PM +0100, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> > > [Please preserve the X-Debbugs-CC line]
> ^^^
> > > Ben Collins writes:
> > > > And as I've said in the past numerous ti
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 09:50:10PM +0100, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> > [Please preserve the X-Debbugs-CC line]
^^^
> > Ben Collins writes:
> > > And as I've said in the past numerous times. The fact that every other
> > > IPv6 using program (including apache
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 09:50:10PM +0100, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> > [Please preserve the X-Debbugs-CC line]
^^^
> > Ben Collins writes:
> > > And as I've said in the past numerous times. The fact that every other
> > > IPv6 using program (including apache
[Please preserve the X-Debbugs-CC line]
Ben Collins writes:
> And as I've said in the past numerous times. The fact that every other
> IPv6 using program (including apache, bind, telnet, etc.) get this
> right, and sshd doesn't, isn't libc's fault.
>
> I've pushed this over to sshd, and we w
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 09:50:10PM +0100, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> [Please preserve the X-Debbugs-CC line]
> Ben Collins writes:
>
> > And as I've said in the past numerous times. The fact that every other
> > IPv6 using program (including apache, bind, telnet, etc.) get this
> > right, and sshd
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> reopen 164768
Bug#164768: libc: IPv6 still not correct.
Bug reopened, originator not changed.
> quit
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
[Please preserve the X-Debbugs-CC line]
Ben Collins writes:
> And as I've said in the past numerous times. The fact that every other
> IPv6 using program (including apache, bind, telnet, etc.) get this
> right, and sshd doesn't, isn't libc's fault.
>
> I've pushed this over to sshd, and we
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 09:50:10PM +0100, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> [Please preserve the X-Debbugs-CC line]
> Ben Collins writes:
>
> > And as I've said in the past numerous times. The fact that every other
> > IPv6 using program (including apache, bind, telnet, etc.) get this
> > right, and ssh
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> reopen 164768
Bug#164768: libc: IPv6 still not correct.
Bug reopened, originator not changed.
> quit
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs da
On Tue, 2002-10-15 at 11:27, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> Philip Blundell writes:
> > On Tue, 2002-10-15 at 00:56, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> > > Executive summary: libc uses an incorrectly-sized sockaddr_in6
> > > structure, which causes programs running under 2.2 kernels to get
> > > error messages w
On Tue, 2002-10-15 at 11:27, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> Philip Blundell writes:
> > On Tue, 2002-10-15 at 00:56, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> > > Executive summary: libc uses an incorrectly-sized sockaddr_in6
> > > structure, which causes programs running under 2.2 kernels to get
> > > error messages
Philip Blundell writes:
> On Tue, 2002-10-15 at 00:56, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> > Executive summary: libc uses an incorrectly-sized sockaddr_in6
> > structure, which causes programs running under 2.2 kernels to get
> > error messages when in fact they are behving correctly. Hence the
> > import
On Tue, 2002-10-15 at 00:56, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> Executive summary: libc uses an incorrectly-sized sockaddr_in6
> structure, which causes programs running under 2.2 kernels to get
> error messages when in fact they are behving correctly. Hence the
> important severity.
>From what you describe,
Philip Blundell writes:
> On Tue, 2002-10-15 at 00:56, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> > Executive summary: libc uses an incorrectly-sized sockaddr_in6
> > structure, which causes programs running under 2.2 kernels to get
> > error messages when in fact they are behving correctly. Hence the
> > impor
On Tue, 2002-10-15 at 00:56, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> Executive summary: libc uses an incorrectly-sized sockaddr_in6
> structure, which causes programs running under 2.2 kernels to get
> error messages when in fact they are behving correctly. Hence the
> important severity.
>From what you describe
Package: libc6
Version: 2.2.5-11.2
Severity: important
Tags: patch
Hi,
This bug was in fact once #82468 (now archived), but having checked
the libc code (and retried the test case), it still exists (and so
really needs fixing.
Executive summary: libc uses an incorrectly-sized sockaddr_in6
struct
Package: libc6
Version: 2.2.5-11.2
Severity: important
Tags: patch
Hi,
This bug was in fact once #82468 (now archived), but having checked
the libc code (and retried the test case), it still exists (and so
really needs fixing.
Executive summary: libc uses an incorrectly-sized sockaddr_in6
struc
41 matches
Mail list logo
