> Does some one have a copy of the posix 1003.1g draft so this can be > verified. This is the kind of ammunition I was talking about earlier 1003.1g isnt what matters - SuS is. > that I would need to convince Sun to change the compatibility test > suite. However, if the 1003.1g draft even mentions failure with errno The compatibility test is broken from a pedantic point of view as your IP address can change dynamically between the query for it and the bind. In general though, bind() is assumed to do the checks and fail if non local and I agree - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Re: bind() allowed to non-local addresses Andi Kleen
- Re: bind() allowed to non-local addresses Matt Peterson
- Re: bind() allowed to non-local addresses Andi Kleen
- Re: bind() allowed to non-local addresses David S. Miller
- Re: bind() allowed to non-local addresses Andi Kleen
- Re: bind() allowed to non-local addresses David Woodhouse
- Re: bind() allowed to non-local addresses Matt Peterson
- Re: bind() allowed to non-local addresses Eric Lammerts
- Re: bind() allowed to non-local addresses Matt Peterson
- Re: bind() allowed to non-local addresses Alexander Viro
- RE: bind() allowed to non-local addresses Alan Cox
- RE: bind() allowed to non-local addresses David Schwartz
- Re: bind() allowed to non-local addresses Christoph Rohland
- RE: bind() allowed to non-local addresses David Schwartz