This is the mail archive of the cygwin-patches mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
On Oct 13 10:20, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > On Oct 13 07:37, Christian Franke wrote: > > Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > >On Oct 10 20:04, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > >>In short, the whole code is written under the assumption that any sane > > >>application calling nonblocking connect would always call select/poll to > > >>check if connect succeeded in the first place. Obviously, as postfix > > >>shows, this is a wrong assumption. > > >> > > >>I'm not yet sure how to fix this, but I'll look into this next week. > > >I applied a fix which, I think, is much more elegant than the former > > >solution. The af_local_connect call is now called as soon as an > > >FD_CONNECT event is generated and read by a call to wait_event. It > > >worked for me, so I have tender hopes that I didn't miss something. > > > > > >I also applied your patch on top of this new stuff and I'm just building > > >a new developer snapshot for testing. > > > > A quick test of current postfix draft with the snapshot works as expected. > > Thanks. > > Did you run other network-related tools, too, in the meantime? Any > fallout which could be a result my change? > > > > In setsockopt I added a check for > > >socket family and type so setsockopt(SO_PEERCRED) only works for > > >AF_LOCAL/SOCK_STREAM sockets, just as the entire handshake stuff. > > > > Probably not needed because this check was already in > > af_local_set_no_getpeereid() itself. > > Doh! I reverted this part of my change. I completely missed the > redundancy here, sorry. > > > > I > > >also added a comment to explain why we do this and a FIXME comment so we > > >don't forget we're still looking for a more generic solution for the > > >SO_PEERCRED exchange. > > > > Definitely, at least because the current AF_LOCAL emulation has some > > security issues. > > -v? Btw., I'd be grateful if we could discuss this on cygwin-developers, if you don't mind. Thanks, Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Maintainer cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat
Attachment:
pgpoEoZDvJXFH.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |