On Fri, 13 Aug 2021 at 16:05, Peter Maydell wrote:
>
> The POSIX spec for sockaddr_in says that implementations are allowed
> to have implementation-dependent extensions controlled by extra
> fields in the struct, and that the way to ensure these are not
> accidentally activated is to zero out the
On 8/15/21 5:44 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Aug 2021 at 15:34, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
> wrote:
>>
>> On 8/13/21 8:30 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
>>> FWIW, the POSIX wording is interesting - it requires portable
>>> applications to zero out sockaddr_in6 (and even states that memset()
>>> is no
On Sun, 15 Aug 2021 at 15:34, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
>
> On 8/13/21 8:30 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
> > FWIW, the POSIX wording is interesting - it requires portable
> > applications to zero out sockaddr_in6 (and even states that memset()
> > is not yet a portable way to do that on exotic hardwa
On 8/13/21 8:30 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 04:05:02PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> The POSIX spec for sockaddr_in says that implementations are allowed
>> to have implementation-dependent extensions controlled by extra
>> fields in the struct, and that the way to ensure these
On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 04:05:02PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> The POSIX spec for sockaddr_in says that implementations are allowed
> to have implementation-dependent extensions controlled by extra
> fields in the struct, and that the way to ensure these are not
> accidentally activated is to zer
