On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 07:37:54AM -0800, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > --On Wednesday, February 23, 2005 9:42 AM +0000 Joe Orton > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >But there is no way to differentiate between any different interfaces > >for the address (without doing magic), so I would say that is a resolver > >misfeature. > > But, the resolver was explicitly told that the socket addresses will be > used to connect() - not for bind(). That's why I'm not convinced this > behavior is 'wrong' per se.
A connect() to 0.0.0.0:80 is just the same; I don't see why it would ever be useful to include two completely identical addresses in the getaddrinfo results. Simply passing AI_PASSIVE does make it omit the duplicates? (http://cvs.apache.org/~jorton/gai.c is useful for testing getaddrinfo behaviour) > >to configure httpd to bind only to "all IPv4 addresses on the local host > >with port X" (right?), which is certainly a valid and useful thing to > >do. > > > >I think httpd should work around this: does something like the attached > >work? (tested only to compile ;) Not necessarily the best place to put > >this logic. > > It seems that we should have a better internal semantic than passing in a > bogus address to connect to. Perhaps httpd in alloc_listener should > intercept the '0.0.0.0' case and set the hostname to NULL and set the > family to IPv4? This would preserve the correct internal semantics we're > looking for such that AI_PASSIVE can be set so we get bind()able addresses. > > Would that be better? -- justin INADDR_ANY is not really a bogus address, but yes I think that does make more sense. It would also need to translate "::" into hostname=NULL+family=AF_INET6 for consistency I suppose. But triggering the AI_PASSIVE path is generally desirable. Do you have time to try that out? joe
