On Thu, 2007-12-20 at 15:03 -0800, Tom Eastep wrote:
> Hence, the proposed function to compare two addresses:
>
> addr_comp() {
> test $(bc < $1 > $2
> EOF
> ) -eq 1
>
> }
>
> That will sure make your parents proud. To compare two numbers, you only
> have to fork(), pipe(), exec(), ...
>
>
Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-12-20 at 13:12 -0800, Tom Eastep wrote:
>> Please have a look at ip_range() and ip_range_explicit() in lib.base and try
>> to envision recoding them to use that technique.
>
> I will admit to not having looked all of the use cases.
>
>> Maybe you want to spe
On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 03:03:24PM -0800, Tom Eastep wrote:
> Hence, the proposed function to compare two addresses:
>
> addr_comp() {
> test $(bc < $1 > $2
> EOF
> ) -eq 1
>
> }
>
> That will sure make your parents proud. To compare two numbers, you only
> have to fork(), pipe(), exec(), ..
Andrew Suffield wrote:
>
> Hrngh. You're right, busybox dc is not a correct implementation of
> posix dc. I think that means you're screwed. To hell with it, and
> depend on bc for arithmetic?
Hence, the proposed function to compare two addresses:
addr_comp() {
test $(bc < $2
EOF
) -eq 1
}
On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 01:32:43PM -0800, Tom Eastep wrote:
> Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 12:58:43PM -0800, Tom Eastep wrote:
> >> Yes -- but that function can blow up the first time that it tries to touch
> >> its arguments in a numeric context. So it would have to break the
Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 12:58:43PM -0800, Tom Eastep wrote:
>> Yes -- but that function can blow up the first time that it tries to touch
>> its arguments in a numeric context. So it would have to break them into two
>> smaller integers without using arithmetic and without
On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 12:58:43PM -0800, Tom Eastep wrote:
> Yes -- but that function can blow up the first time that it tries to touch
> its arguments in a numeric context. So it would have to break them into two
> smaller integers without using arithmetic and without the benefit of
> ${foo:a:b}
On Thu, 2007-12-20 at 13:12 -0800, Tom Eastep wrote:
>
> Please have a look at ip_range() and ip_range_explicit() in lib.base and try
> to envision recoding them to use that technique.
I will admit to not having looked all of the use cases.
> Maybe you want to spend
> your Christmas vacation tha
Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-12-20 at 12:58 -0800, Tom Eastep wrote:
>> Yes -- but that function can blow up the first time that it tries to touch
>> its arguments in a numeric context. So it would have to break them into two
>> smaller integers without using arithmetic and without the be
On Thu, 2007-12-20 at 12:58 -0800, Tom Eastep wrote:
>
> Yes -- but that function can blow up the first time that it tries to touch
> its arguments in a numeric context. So it would have to break them into two
> smaller integers without using arithmetic and without the benefit of
> ${foo:a:b} (the
Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-12-20 at 12:31 -0800, Tom Eastep wrote:
>> Ok -- you can probably make the obvious change to in_network(), replacing
>> the '-eq' with '='.
>
> Ahhh. The subtle difference between -gt and =. :-)
>
>> That will take care of the immediate problem but, as yo
On Thu, 2007-12-20 at 12:31 -0800, Tom Eastep wrote:
>
> Ok -- you can probably make the obvious change to in_network(), replacing
> the '-eq' with '='.
Ahhh. The subtle difference between -gt and =. :-)
> That will take care of the immediate problem but, as you point out, there
> are other c
Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-12-20 at 12:22 -0800, Tom Eastep wrote:
>> What does "[ $foo = 0 ]" do?
>
> # [ $foo = 0 ]
>
> and just to evidence that we are still in busybox's /bin/sh and that
> $foo has our testing value in it:
>
> # echo $foo
> 2953838592
> # eval [ $foo -eq 0 ]
> sh
On Thu, 2007-12-20 at 12:22 -0800, Tom Eastep wrote:
>
> What does "[ $foo = 0 ]" do?
# [ $foo = 0 ]
and just to evidence that we are still in busybox's /bin/sh and that
$foo has our testing value in it:
# echo $foo
2953838592
# eval [ $foo -eq 0 ]
sh: 2953838592: out of range
b.
signature.
Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-12-20 at 11:35 -0800, Tom Eastep wrote:
>> I must be missing something -- you specifically tested that number in a "[
>> -eq ]". So what does this do?
>
> Aw crap. No you are not missing something I am. I did all of my
> previous tests in a bash. I forgot
On Thu, 2007-12-20 at 11:44 -0800, Tom Eastep wrote:
> Then I have no clue how work around the bug.
Could the concept of doing:
a=decodeaddr A
b=decodeaddr B
test a -gt b
be abstracted into a function in the following manner:
compare_addrs A B
and then let compare_addrs() handle the ugliness?
Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-12-20 at 11:35 -0800, Tom Eastep wrote:
>> I must be missing something -- you specifically tested that number in a "[
>> -eq ]". So what does this do?
>
> Aw crap. No you are not missing something I am. I did all of my
> previous tests in a bash. I forgot
On Thu, 2007-12-20 at 11:35 -0800, Tom Eastep wrote:
>
> I must be missing something -- you specifically tested that number in a "[
> -eq ]". So what does this do?
Aw crap. No you are not missing something I am. I did all of my
previous tests in a bash. I forgot to specifically change my
inte
Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-12-20 at 11:11 -0800, Tom Eastep wrote:
>> The attached patch should work around the problem.
>
>> -test $(( $(decodeaddr $1) & $netmask)) -eq $(( $(decodeaddr ${2%/*}) &
>> $netmask ))
>> +[ $(( $(decodeaddr $1) & $netmask)) -eq $(( $(decodeaddr ${
On Thu, 2007-12-20 at 11:11 -0800, Tom Eastep wrote:
>
> The attached patch should work around the problem.
> -test $(( $(decodeaddr $1) & $netmask)) -eq $(( $(decodeaddr ${2%/*}) &
> $netmask ))
> +[ $(( $(decodeaddr $1) & $netmask)) -eq $(( $(decodeaddr ${2%/*}) &
> $netmask )) ]
>
Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-12-20 at 10:50 -0800, Tom Eastep wrote:
>> Ok -- one more test. What does this do?
>>
>> [ 16777216 -eq 2953838592 ] || echo foo
>
> # [ 16777216 -eq 2953838592 ] || echo foo
> foo
>
Ok -- the bug appears to be in BusyBox 'test' then.
The attached patch sh
On Thu, 2007-12-20 at 10:50 -0800, Tom Eastep wrote:
> Ok -- one more test. What does this do?
>
> [ 16777216 -eq 2953838592 ] || echo foo
# [ 16777216 -eq 2953838592 ] || echo foo
foo
FWIW, BTW, I did file a bug with OpenWRT about this. Not sure it will
go anywhere though.
b.
signature.asc
Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-12-20 at 10:34 -0800, Tom Eastep wrote:
>> Brian J. Murrell wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2007-12-20 at 10:02 -0800, Tom Eastep wrote:
Brian: If you modify /usr/share/shorewall-lite/lib.base using the attached
patch, what does "shorewall-lite ipdecimal 176.16.0
On Thu, 2007-12-20 at 10:34 -0800, Tom Eastep wrote:
> Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> > On Thu, 2007-12-20 at 10:02 -0800, Tom Eastep wrote:
> >> Brian: If you modify /usr/share/shorewall-lite/lib.base using the attached
> >> patch, what does "shorewall-lite ipdecimal 176.16.0.0" print?
> >
> > Same as
Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-12-20 at 10:02 -0800, Tom Eastep wrote:
>> Brian: If you modify /usr/share/shorewall-lite/lib.base using the attached
>> patch, what does "shorewall-lite ipdecimal 176.16.0.0" print?
>
> Same as without the patch:
>
> before_patch:# shorewall-lite ipdecimal
On Thu, 2007-12-20 at 10:02 -0800, Tom Eastep wrote:
> Brian: If you modify /usr/share/shorewall-lite/lib.base using the attached
> patch, what does "shorewall-lite ipdecimal 176.16.0.0" print?
Same as without the patch:
before_patch:# shorewall-lite ipdecimal 176.16.0.0
2953838592
after_patch
Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 03:54:55PM -0800, Tom Eastep wrote:
>> Tom Eastep wrote:
>>
>>> 172.16.0.0 decodes to 0x10. Does BusyBox on that architecture only
>>> support 20-bit arithmatic?
>> What spelling -- and I hold an advanced degree in Mathematics :-(
>
> And perhap
On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 03:54:55PM -0800, Tom Eastep wrote:
> Tom Eastep wrote:
>
> > 172.16.0.0 decodes to 0x10. Does BusyBox on that architecture only
> > support 20-bit arithmatic?
>
> What spelling -- and I hold an advanced degree in Mathematics :-(
And perhaps more significantly, it dec
Tom Eastep wrote:
> Brian J. Murrell wrote:
>> On Wed, 2007-12-19 at 15:02 -0800, Tom Eastep wrote:
>>> I don't have time for puzzles. What input did you give to Shorewall to
>>> produce whatever problem you are trying to report?
>> Sorry. I should have reproduced more of the subject into the mess
Tom Eastep wrote:
> 172.16.0.0 decodes to 0x10. Does BusyBox on that architecture only
> support 20-bit arithmatic?
What spelling -- and I hold an advanced degree in Mathematics :-(
arithmetic
arithmetic
arithmetic
...
-Tom
--
Tom Eastep\ Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented
Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-12-19 at 15:02 -0800, Tom Eastep wrote:
>> I don't have time for puzzles. What input did you give to Shorewall to
>> produce whatever problem you are trying to report?
>
> Sorry. I should have reproduced more of the subject into the message.
> The results wh
On Wed, 2007-12-19 at 15:02 -0800, Tom Eastep wrote:
> I don't have time for puzzles. What input did you give to Shorewall to
> produce whatever problem you are trying to report?
Sorry. I should have reproduced more of the subject into the message.
The results which can be too large for busybox's
Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-12-19 at 15:19 -0800, Tom Eastep wrote:
>> Furthermore:
>>
>> BusyBox v1.1.3 (Debian 1:1.1.3-5ubuntu7) Built-in shell (ash)
>> Enter 'help' for a list of built-in commands.
>>
>> ~ $ test 1107296256 -eq 2953838592
>> ~ $
>
> Interesting. It would seem my bus
On Wed, 2007-12-19 at 15:19 -0800, Tom Eastep wrote:
>
> Furthermore:
>
> BusyBox v1.1.3 (Debian 1:1.1.3-5ubuntu7) Built-in shell (ash)
> Enter 'help' for a list of built-in commands.
>
> ~ $ test 1107296256 -eq 2953838592
> ~ $
Interesting. It would seem my busybox is newer than yours. It's
Tom Eastep wrote:
> Brian J. Murrell wrote:
>> Bash does not seem to mind:
>>
>> $ test 1107296256 -eq 2953838592
>>
>> however busybox's sh does:
>>
>> # /bin/sh
>>
>>
>> BusyBox v1.8.2 (2007-12-11 14:13:35 EST) built-in shell (ash)
>> Enter 'help' for a list of built-in commands.
>>
>> # test 110
Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> Bash does not seem to mind:
>
> $ test 1107296256 -eq 2953838592
>
> however busybox's sh does:
>
> # /bin/sh
>
>
> BusyBox v1.8.2 (2007-12-11 14:13:35 EST) built-in shell (ash)
> Enter 'help' for a list of built-in commands.
>
> # test 1107296256 -eq 2953838592
> sh
Bash does not seem to mind:
$ test 1107296256 -eq 2953838592
however busybox's sh does:
# /bin/sh
BusyBox v1.8.2 (2007-12-11 14:13:35 EST) built-in shell (ash)
Enter 'help' for a list of built-in commands.
# test 1107296256 -eq 2953838592
sh: 2953838592: out of range
Not sure how much we car
37 matches
Mail list logo
