On 28 April 2017 at 14:48, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-04-28 at 12:55 +1000, Daurnimator wrote:
>> On 1 April 2017 at 03:52, Cong Wang wrote:
>> > Please submit your patch formally and with a man page patch too.
>>
>> Did a patch get submitted? I had a loo
On 1 April 2017 at 03:52, Cong Wang wrote:
> Please submit your patch formally and with a man page patch too.
Did a patch get submitted? I had a look but couldn't see it.
On 29 March 2017 at 10:11, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Should we also fix IPv6 or is this bug only about IPv4 ?
In IPv6 the second connect() returns ENETUNREACH (rather than failing
yet returning 0 as it does in IPv4).
This should probably incorrect behaviour and should the operation
should succeed.
On 29 March 2017 at 10:44, Daurnimator wrote:
> This should probably incorrect behaviour and should the operation
> should succeed.
Uh, not sure why there are so many "should"s in that message.
This is probably incorrect behaviour and the operation should succeed.
On 9 March 2017 at 14:10, Daurnimator wrote:
> When debugging https://github.com/daurnimator/lua-http/issues/73 which
> uses https://github.com/wahern/dns we ran into an issue where modern
> linux kernels return EINVAL if you try and re-use a udp socket.
> The issue seems to occur if
When debugging https://github.com/daurnimator/lua-http/issues/73 which
uses https://github.com/wahern/dns we ran into an issue where modern
linux kernels return EINVAL if you try and re-use a udp socket.
The issue seems to occur if you go from a local destination ip to a
non-local one.
>F
