Am Montag 12 April 2010 23:25:16 schrieb Russ Allbery: > Adam Borowski <kilob...@angband.pl> writes: > > Instead of listening on a single socket, you need to change every single > > daemon to include a select() loop. That's explicitely allowed by all > > relevant RFCs and by POSIX, so breaking that is quite a regression. > > Yeah, I understand why POSIX made the choice that they did. I just think > it's a bad tradeoff.
It's a trade-off with a different goal in mind. So what. Both settings of bindv6only are if you cannot assume standard behaviour. Maybe we should patch this option _out_ of the linux kernel to get rid of the assumption that the default may be changed. > BTW, I've not tried this myself: does someone know what happens if a > daemon called from an inetd equivalent calls getpeername() on a socket > bound by an IPv6-aware inetd using mapped addresses? For IPv4 > connections, does it get back an IPv4 address or an IPv6 mapped address? > Do the inetd implementations currently in Debian separately bind IPv4 and > IPv6 sockets, or do they use mapped addresses? Read about IPV6_ADDRFORM in ipv6(7). Use it. Change back to the default and forget about this discussion how hard it is to convert addresses to AF_INET style, so ACLs do match. Enjoy life :) HS -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201004130724.18975.p...@hendrik-sattler.de