faithd fcntl diff

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
10 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

faithd fcntl diff

David Hill-3
O_NONBLOCK is set with F_SETFL

Index: usr.sbin/faithd/tcp.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.sbin/faithd/tcp.c,v
retrieving revision 1.12
diff -N -u -p usr.sbin/faithd/tcp.c
--- usr.sbin/faithd/tcp.c 8 Sep 2002 01:20:15 -0000 1.12
+++ usr.sbin/faithd/tcp.c 20 Jan 2013 22:17:13 -0000
@@ -206,7 +206,7 @@ relay(int s_rcv, int s_snd, const char *service, int d
  FD_ZERO(&readfds);
  FD_ZERO(&writefds);
  FD_ZERO(&exceptfds);
- fcntl(s_snd, F_SETFD, O_NONBLOCK);
+ fcntl(s_snd, F_SETFL, O_NONBLOCK);
  oreadfds = readfds; owritefds = writefds; oexceptfds = exceptfds;
  if (s_rcv >= FD_SETSIZE)
  exit_failure("descriptor too big");

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: faithd fcntl diff

David Hill-3
Anyone want to OK and commit?

On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 05:19:18PM -0500, David Hill wrote:

>O_NONBLOCK is set with F_SETFL
>
>Index: usr.sbin/faithd/tcp.c
>===================================================================
>RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.sbin/faithd/tcp.c,v
>retrieving revision 1.12
>diff -N -u -p usr.sbin/faithd/tcp.c
>--- usr.sbin/faithd/tcp.c 8 Sep 2002 01:20:15 -0000 1.12
>+++ usr.sbin/faithd/tcp.c 20 Jan 2013 22:17:13 -0000
>@@ -206,7 +206,7 @@ relay(int s_rcv, int s_snd, const char *service, int d
> FD_ZERO(&readfds);
> FD_ZERO(&writefds);
> FD_ZERO(&exceptfds);
>- fcntl(s_snd, F_SETFD, O_NONBLOCK);
>+ fcntl(s_snd, F_SETFL, O_NONBLOCK);
> oreadfds = readfds; owritefds = writefds; oexceptfds = exceptfds;
> if (s_rcv >= FD_SETSIZE)
> exit_failure("descriptor too big");
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: faithd fcntl diff

Todd T. Fries-2
In light of nat64 in pf(4), what purpose does faithd(8) serve anymore?

I played with it a bit over a decade ago, but don't recall having any use
for it in the last number of years.

I vote it gets tedu'ed.

Penned by David Hill on 20130209 12:53.51, we have:
| Anyone want to OK and commit?
|
| On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 05:19:18PM -0500, David Hill wrote:
| >O_NONBLOCK is set with F_SETFL
| >
| >Index: usr.sbin/faithd/tcp.c
| >===================================================================
| >RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.sbin/faithd/tcp.c,v
| >retrieving revision 1.12
| >diff -N -u -p usr.sbin/faithd/tcp.c
| >--- usr.sbin/faithd/tcp.c 8 Sep 2002 01:20:15 -0000 1.12
| >+++ usr.sbin/faithd/tcp.c 20 Jan 2013 22:17:13 -0000
| >@@ -206,7 +206,7 @@ relay(int s_rcv, int s_snd, const char *service, int d
| > FD_ZERO(&readfds);
| > FD_ZERO(&writefds);
| > FD_ZERO(&exceptfds);
| >- fcntl(s_snd, F_SETFD, O_NONBLOCK);
| >+ fcntl(s_snd, F_SETFL, O_NONBLOCK);
| > oreadfds = readfds; owritefds = writefds; oexceptfds = exceptfds;
| > if (s_rcv >= FD_SETSIZE)
| > exit_failure("descriptor too big");
| >

--
Todd Fries .. [hidden email]

 ____________________________________________
|                                            \  1.636.410.0632 (voice)
| Free Daemon Consulting, LLC                \  1.405.227.9094 (voice)
| http://FreeDaemonConsulting.com            \  1.866.792.3418 (FAX)
| PO Box 16169, Oklahoma City, OK 73113      \  sip:[hidden email]
| "..in support of free software solutions." \  sip:[hidden email]
 \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
                                                 
              37E7 D3EB 74D0 8D66 A68D  B866 0326 204E 3F42 004A
                        http://todd.fries.net/pgp.txt

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: faithd fcntl diff

Christiano F. Haesbaert
On 11 February 2013 07:05, Todd T. Fries <[hidden email]> wrote:
> In light of nat64 in pf(4), what purpose does faithd(8) serve anymore?
>
> I played with it a bit over a decade ago, but don't recall having any use
> for it in the last number of years.
>
> I vote it gets tedu'ed.
>

I vote for it too, I remember suggesting it last year.

> Penned by David Hill on 20130209 12:53.51, we have:
> | Anyone want to OK and commit?
> |
> | On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 05:19:18PM -0500, David Hill wrote:
> | >O_NONBLOCK is set with F_SETFL
> | >
> | >Index: usr.sbin/faithd/tcp.c
> | >===================================================================
> | >RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.sbin/faithd/tcp.c,v
> | >retrieving revision 1.12
> | >diff -N -u -p usr.sbin/faithd/tcp.c
> | >--- usr.sbin/faithd/tcp.c    8 Sep 2002 01:20:15 -0000       1.12
> | >+++ usr.sbin/faithd/tcp.c    20 Jan 2013 22:17:13 -0000
> | >@@ -206,7 +206,7 @@ relay(int s_rcv, int s_snd, const char *service, int d
> | >     FD_ZERO(&readfds);
> | >     FD_ZERO(&writefds);
> | >     FD_ZERO(&exceptfds);
> | >-    fcntl(s_snd, F_SETFD, O_NONBLOCK);
> | >+    fcntl(s_snd, F_SETFL, O_NONBLOCK);
> | >     oreadfds = readfds; owritefds = writefds; oexceptfds = exceptfds;
> | >     if (s_rcv >= FD_SETSIZE)
> | >             exit_failure("descriptor too big");
> | >
>
> --
> Todd Fries .. [hidden email]
>
>  ____________________________________________
> |                                            \  1.636.410.0632 (voice)
> | Free Daemon Consulting, LLC                \  1.405.227.9094 (voice)
> | http://FreeDaemonConsulting.com            \  1.866.792.3418 (FAX)
> | PO Box 16169, Oklahoma City, OK 73113      \  sip:[hidden email]
> | "..in support of free software solutions." \  sip:[hidden email]
>  \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
>
>               37E7 D3EB 74D0 8D66 A68D  B866 0326 204E 3F42 004A
>                         http://todd.fries.net/pgp.txt
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: faithd fcntl diff

Stuart Henderson
In reply to this post by Todd T. Fries-2
On 2013/02/11 00:05, Todd T. Fries wrote:
> In light of nat64 in pf(4), what purpose does faithd(8) serve anymore?

ftp translation; but I doubt anyone uses that.

> I played with it a bit over a decade ago, but don't recall having any use
> for it in the last number of years.
>
> I vote it gets tedu'ed.

+1. don't forget the kernel parts!

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: faithd fcntl diff

Mark Kettenis
In reply to this post by Todd T. Fries-2
> Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 00:05:29 -0600
> From: "Todd T. Fries" <[hidden email]>
>
> In light of nat64 in pf(4), what purpose does faithd(8) serve anymore?
>
> I played with it a bit over a decade ago, but don't recall having any use
> for it in the last number of years.
>
> I vote it gets tedu'ed.

I fear it's too late in the game to do that now.

Bring this up again after unlock.  Meanwhile, perhaps that bug (if it
really is a bug) should be fixed?

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: faithd fcntl diff

Todd T. Fries-2
Penned by Mark Kettenis on 20130211 10:00.08, we have:
| > Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 00:05:29 -0600
| > From: "Todd T. Fries" <[hidden email]>
| >
| > In light of nat64 in pf(4), what purpose does faithd(8) serve anymore?
| >
| > I played with it a bit over a decade ago, but don't recall having any use
| > for it in the last number of years.
| >
| > I vote it gets tedu'ed.
|
| I fear it's too late in the game to do that now.
|
| Bring this up again after unlock.  Meanwhile, perhaps that bug (if it
| really is a bug) should be fixed?

I spoke with David Hill on irc and turns out it was found during
a O_CLOEXEC cleanup.

Since we strive for correct code everywhere, makes sense to me to commit the
fix, so we put better 'last version before teduing' code in the attic after
unlock.

Thanks,
--
Todd Fries .. [hidden email]

 ____________________________________________
|                                            \  1.636.410.0632 (voice)
| Free Daemon Consulting, LLC                \  1.405.227.9094 (voice)
| http://FreeDaemonConsulting.com            \  1.866.792.3418 (FAX)
| PO Box 16169, Oklahoma City, OK 73113      \  sip:[hidden email]
| "..in support of free software solutions." \  sip:[hidden email]
 \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
                                                 
              37E7 D3EB 74D0 8D66 A68D  B866 0326 204E 3F42 004A
                        http://todd.fries.net/pgp.txt

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: faithd fcntl diff

Bob Beck-3
In reply to this post by Mark Kettenis


On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 05:00:08PM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote:

> > Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 00:05:29 -0600
> > From: "Todd T. Fries" <[hidden email]>
> >
> > In light of nat64 in pf(4), what purpose does faithd(8) serve anymore?
> >
> > I played with it a bit over a decade ago, but don't recall having any use
> > for it in the last number of years.
> >
> > I vote it gets tedu'ed.
>
> I fear it's too late in the game to do that now.
>
> Bring this up again after unlock.  Meanwhile, perhaps that bug (if it
> really is a bug) should be fixed?

yeah, I'd probably shy away from tedu'ing it at this late stage
in the release cycle - make sure it's adequate for release, and then
get your inner ted out as soon as the tree unlocks after release...

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: faithd fcntl diff

David Hill-3
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 11:54:58AM -0700, Bob Beck wrote:

>
>
>On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 05:00:08PM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote:
>> > Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 00:05:29 -0600
>> > From: "Todd T. Fries" <[hidden email]>
>> >
>> > In light of nat64 in pf(4), what purpose does faithd(8) serve anymore?
>> >
>> > I played with it a bit over a decade ago, but don't recall having any use
>> > for it in the last number of years.
>> >
>> > I vote it gets tedu'ed.
>>
>> I fear it's too late in the game to do that now.
>>
>> Bring this up again after unlock.  Meanwhile, perhaps that bug (if it
>> really is a bug) should be fixed?
>
>yeah, I'd probably shy away from tedu'ing it at this late stage
>in the release cycle - make sure it's adequate for release, and then
>get your inner ted out as soon as the tree unlocks after release...
>

tedu time? :)

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: faithd fcntl diff

Martin Pieuchot-2
On 05/03/13(Tue) 09:03, David Hill wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 11:54:58AM -0700, Bob Beck wrote:
> >
> >
> >On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 05:00:08PM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> >> > Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 00:05:29 -0600
> >> > From: "Todd T. Fries" <[hidden email]>
> >> >
> >> > In light of nat64 in pf(4), what purpose does faithd(8) serve anymore?
> >> >
> >> > I played with it a bit over a decade ago, but don't recall having any use
> >> > for it in the last number of years.
> >> >
> >> > I vote it gets tedu'ed.
> >>
> >> I fear it's too late in the game to do that now.
> >>
> >> Bring this up again after unlock.  Meanwhile, perhaps that bug (if it
> >> really is a bug) should be fixed?
> >
> >yeah, I'd probably shy away from tedu'ing it at this late stage
> >in the release cycle - make sure it's adequate for release, and then
> >get your inner ted out as soon as the tree unlocks after release...
> >
>
> tedu time? :)

Sure do you have a diff?