Hi Dmitry! On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 01:33:56PM +0300, Dmitry Sivachenko wrote: > > > On 29 ????????. 2015 ??., at 23:06, Willy Tarreau <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 10:59:15PM +0300, Dmitry Sivachenko wrote: > >>> I *think* that getaddrinfo() provides this. You can try to build by > >>> adding USE_GETADDRINFO=1 to your makefile. It's not enabled by default > >>> because there are numerous bogus implementations on various systems. > >>> If it works for you it could be the best solution as other programs > >>> which work are likely using it. I don't know if it's safe to enable > >>> it by default on FreeBSD. > >>> > >> > >> > >> I do have this enabled: > >> > >> Build options : > >> TARGET = freebsd > >> CPU = generic > >> CC = cc > >> CFLAGS = -O2 -pipe -O2 -fno-strict-aliasing -pipe -fstack-protector > >> -DFREEBSD_PORTS > >> OPTIONS = USE_GETADDRINFO=1 USE_ZLIB=1 USE_OPENSSL=1 USE_STATIC_PCRE=1 > >> USE_PCRE_JIT=1 > > > > Then I have no idea how other programs retrieve the information allowing > > them to respect your system-global choices :-( > > > The following patch fixes the problem for me: > > --- standard.c.orig 2015-09-30 13:28:52.688425000 +0300 > +++ standard.c 2015-09-30 13:29:00.826968000 +0300 > @@ -599,7 +599,7 @@ static struct sockaddr_storage *str2ip(c > memset(&hints, 0, sizeof(hints)); > hints.ai_family = sa->ss_family ? sa->ss_family : AF_UNSPEC; > hints.ai_socktype = SOCK_DGRAM; > - hints.ai_flags = AI_PASSIVE; > + hints.ai_flags = 0; > hints.ai_protocol = 0; > > if (getaddrinfo(str, NULL, &hints, &result) == 0) { > > > > FreeBSD manual page for getaddrinfo() is uncertain how to treat AI_PASSIVE > when hostname parameter is non-NULL (and this parameter is always non-NULL in > standard.c:str2ip()). > https://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=getaddrinfo&sektion=3 > > On Linux manual page explicitly states that "If node is not NULL, then the > AI_PASSIVE flag is ignored." > > So this change should be harmless for Linux. > > What do you think?
I think that you did a good job and that you're perfectly right. I even checked on one of my older systems and the text was the same in 2008. Could you please write a commit message describing the initial issue and copying your analysis above so that we don't lose the elements. Please tag it as a bug so that we backport it to 1.5 as well. Cheers, Willy
