Eric Lammerts wrote:
>
> On Fri, 20 Oct 2000, Matt Peterson wrote:
> > Are you also suggesting that every other program that expects bind() to
> > fail with EADDRNOTAVAIL are broken too? Just for fun, I greped all
> > sources of software shipped in Caldera's dis
David Woodhouse wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> > There is NOT a bug in the JVM code that handles java.net.DatagramSock
> > et. Don't you find it a little compelling that the nearly identical
> > JVM code passes the Java Compatibility test suite on Linux 2.2,
> > Solaris, HPUX, SCO, and
David Woodhouse wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
There is NOT a bug in the JVM code that handles java.net.DatagramSock
et. Don't you find it a little compelling that the nearly identical
JVM code passes the Java Compatibility test suite on Linux 2.2,
Solaris, HPUX, SCO, and even
Eric Lammerts wrote:
On Fri, 20 Oct 2000, Matt Peterson wrote:
Are you also suggesting that every other program that expects bind() to
fail with EADDRNOTAVAIL are broken too? Just for fun, I greped all
sources of software shipped in Caldera's distributions for instances of
where
Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> > The JRE compliance tests have a test which makes sure that for a
> > non-local addresses, bind() returns an error code, specifically
> > -EADDRNOTAVAIL.
>
> Sounds like a bug that should be reported to Sun.
>
Hello? Send a bug to Sun? I don't see any logic here. I
"David S. Miller" wrote:
>
>Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 09:23:26 -0600
>From: Matt Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>Have you thought about an SOL_SOCKET level socket option? It might
>be more intuitive for programmers than an ioctl and could be
"David S. Miller" wrote:
>
>Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 09:07:57 -0600
>From: Matt Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>Hence, the JVM fails compatibility on Linux 2.4.
>
> Due ot this and other reasons I'm restoring the 2.2.x behavior by
> default, b
"David S. Miller" wrote:
>
>Date:Wed, 18 Oct 2000 17:20:22 -0600
>From: Matt Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>Assuming that my "compatibility argument" is not considered valid.
>What I really need is some good ammunition for
"David S. Miller" wrote:
Date:Wed, 18 Oct 2000 17:20:22 -0600
From: Matt Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Assuming that my "compatibility argument" is not considered valid.
What I really need is some good ammunition for going back to Sun to
ask th
"David S. Miller" wrote:
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 09:07:57 -0600
From: Matt Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hence, the JVM fails compatibility on Linux 2.4.
Due ot this and other reasons I'm restoring the 2.2.x behavior by
default, but adding a sysctl so that systems usi
"David S. Miller" wrote:
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 09:23:26 -0600
From: Matt Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Have you thought about an SOL_SOCKET level socket option? It might
be more intuitive for programmers than an ioctl and could be
documented with soc
Andi Kleen wrote:
The JRE compliance tests have a test which makes sure that for a
non-local addresses, bind() returns an error code, specifically
-EADDRNOTAVAIL.
Sounds like a bug that should be reported to Sun.
Hello? Send a bug to Sun? I don't see any logic here. I have
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Hello!
>
> > Using linux-2.4.0-test9, bind() incorrectly allows a bind to a non-local
> > address. The correct behavior should be a return code of -1 with errno
> > set to EADDRNOTAVAIL.
>
> You can bind to any address, it is your right. You will not able
> to
Using linux-2.4.0-test9, bind() incorrectly allows a bind to a non-local
address. The correct behavior should be a return code of -1 with errno
set to EADDRNOTAVAIL. (Simple snippet to reproduce/debug the problem is
available on request)
There appears to be significant differences between the
Using linux-2.4.0-test9, bind() incorrectly allows a bind to a non-local
address. The correct behavior should be a return code of -1 with errno
set to EADDRNOTAVAIL. (Simple snippet to reproduce/debug the problem is
available on request)
There appears to be significant differences between the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello!
Using linux-2.4.0-test9, bind() incorrectly allows a bind to a non-local
address. The correct behavior should be a return code of -1 with errno
set to EADDRNOTAVAIL.
You can bind to any address, it is your right. You will not able
to receive on or
16 matches
Mail list logo
