On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 07:05:30PM +0100, Ignatios Souvatzis wrote:
>On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 12:16:28PM +0000, Iain Hibbert wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 Feb 2006, Ignatios Souvatzis wrote:
>> 
>> > On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 10:20:53PM +0100, Ignatios Souvatzis wrote:
>> > > On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 01:11:52PM -0800, jonathan@dsg.stanford.edu wrote:
>> > > Yes, and that error message is bogus as you noted: [...]
>> >
>> > I've looked at the code - IMHO there is a clean one-line patch:
>> 
>> I've not looked at the code (ok just a sneak peek), but it strikes me that
>> there could be other errors returned here (ENOMEM for instance), so I
>> propose a different one liner, which is more accurate if you just consider
>> that specific result to be not an error at this time.
>> 
>> -         if (sock < 0)
>> +         if (sock < 0 && errno != EPROTONOSUPPORT)
>> 
>> > RCS file: /cvsroot/src/crypto/dist/ssh/sshconnect.c,v
>> > retrieving revision 1.31
>> > diff -u -r1.31 sshconnect.c
>> > --- sshconnect.c        23 Apr 2005 16:53:29 -0000      1.31
>> > +++ sshconnect.c        22 Feb 2006 10:29:20 -0000
>> > @@ -188,7 +188,7 @@
>> >         }
>> >         sock = socket(ai->ai_family, ai->ai_socktype, ai->ai_protocol);
>> >         if (sock < 0)
>> > -               error("socket: %.100s", strerror(errno));
>> > +               debug("socket: %.100s", strerror(errno));
>> >
>> >         /* Bind the socket to an alternative local IP address */
>> >         if (options.bind_address == NULL)
>> >
>> > Note that the last setting of errno is printed after the for loop in the
>> > function ssh_connect(), anyway - see line 395, so if _no_ address has a
>> > supported address family, the user would be notified.
>> 
>> I wish I hadnt taken that sneak peek now. Maybe it can't happen for other
>> reasons, but as error() is not an exit function, close(-1) and bind(-1)
>> both seem to be possible when (options.bind_address != NULL) and the
>> socket() failed
>> 
>> better to do:
>> 
>> 	if (sock < 0) {
>> 		if (errno != EPROTONOSUPPORT)
>> 			error(...);
>> 
>> 		return -1;
>> 	}
>> 
>> Also, if you did change the error() to debug() then you should really
>> change the comment on line 391 "Any error is already output" to something
>> more appropriate. I would suggest "Not necessarily an error"
>
>In your example you forgot the else debug(...), but I guess otherwise
>that's fine.


thanks all for your interest! can someone send me a clumitive
patch to try out? I presume this will apply to netbsd-3-0?

// George


-- 
George Georgalis, systems architect, administrator <IXOYE><
http://galis.org/ cell:646-331-2027 mailto:george@galis.org