On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 07:44:40AM -0700, Jeff Bailey wrote:
On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 09:26:31AM -0500, Colin Watson wrote:
Is there any compromise we can reach *without* applying hacks that
cover up the fact that glibc doesn't cope with the differently-sized
kernel structure?
Half
On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 12:13:34PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 07:44:40AM -0700, Jeff Bailey wrote:
On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 09:26:31AM -0500, Colin Watson wrote:
Is there any compromise we can reach *without* applying hacks that
cover up the fact that glibc doesn't
On Tue, 2002-10-22 at 12:54, Ben Collins wrote:
Speaking of which, I thought the USAGI guys had a patch to make 2.2.x
work correctly anyway?
Not that I remember. I think USAGI gave up IPv6 on 2.2 as a lost cause
some time ago. It would be worth checking, though.
p.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 12:13:34PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 07:44:40AM -0700, Jeff Bailey wrote:
On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 09:26:31AM -0500, Colin Watson wrote:
Is there any compromise we can reach *without* applying hacks that
cover up the fact that glibc doesn't
On Tue, 2002-10-22 at 12:54, Ben Collins wrote:
Speaking of which, I thought the USAGI guys had a patch to make 2.2.x
work correctly anyway?
Not that I remember. I think USAGI gave up IPv6 on 2.2 as a lost cause
some time ago. It would be worth checking, though.
p.
On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 11:57:57PM +0100, Philip Blundell wrote:
On Tue, 2002-10-22 at 12:54, Ben Collins wrote:
Speaking of which, I thought the USAGI guys had a patch to make 2.2.x
work correctly anyway?
Not that I remember. I think USAGI gave up IPv6 on 2.2 as a lost cause
some time
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 16:36:50 -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 09:06:03PM +0100, Matthew Vernon wrote:
For the avoidance of doubt, this is the same problem as reported in
82468[1] (which was closed this ssh/libc bug is long since gone
without any fix being applied), but
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 10:35:50AM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 10:49:06AM +0100, Jonathan Amery wrote:
Ben Collins wrote:
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 09:50:10PM +0100, Matthew Vernon wrote:
ssh is using getpeername() in accordance with the manual. The
structure that
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 10:35:50AM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 10:49:06AM +0100, Jonathan Amery wrote:
Ben Collins wrote:
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 09:50:10PM +0100, Matthew Vernon wrote:
ssh is using getpeername() in accordance with the manual. The
structure that
Since you're saying that glibc doesn't want to work around a kernel bug,
I'm sure you can appreciate that we aren't keen on working around what
we see as an inadequacy in glibc either. The mutual unwillingness to
perpetrate workarounds is why this argument has dragged on for so many
months.
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 16:36:50 -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 09:06:03PM +0100, Matthew Vernon wrote:
For the avoidance of doubt, this is the same problem as reported in
82468[1] (which was closed this ssh/libc bug is long since gone
without any fix being applied), but
On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 09:26:31AM -0500, Colin Watson wrote:
Is there any compromise we can reach *without* applying hacks that
cover up the fact that glibc doesn't cope with the differently-sized
kernel structure?
Half tongue-in-cheek, half not: Is 2.2 a supported kernel for the
sarge
On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 10:56:45AM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
Half tongue-in-cheek, half not: Is 2.2 a supported kernel for the
sarge release? Since the 2.4 series has stabilized, it might be
time to put thoughts into just telling people that 2.4 is Good And
Right.
For a lot of
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 10:49:06AM +0100, Jonathan Amery wrote:
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 09:50:10PM +0100, Matthew Vernon wrote:
[Please preserve the X-Debbugs-CC line]
^^^
Ben Collins writes:
And as I've said in the past numerous times. The
On Thursday, October 17, 2002, at 10:35 AM, Ben Collins wrote:
No, sshd should be checking the validity of the data that is returned
to
it.
If a program makes a correct library call to glibc, and glibc returns a
result code that indicates success, and yet returns data the
contradicts the
On Thursday, October 17, 2002, at 12:04 PM, Ben Collins wrote:
Glibc expects the correct data from the kernel. So by your logic, the
kernel has the bug, ultimately.
Fine by me. If the kernel is breaking its interface with glibc, then
that's a kernel bug.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 09:50:10PM +0100, Matthew Vernon wrote:
[Please preserve the X-Debbugs-CC line]
^^^
Ben Collins writes:
And as I've said in the past numerous times. The fact that every other
IPv6 using program (including apache, bind,
On Thursday, October 17, 2002, at 10:35 AM, Ben Collins wrote:
No, sshd should be checking the validity of the data that is returned
to
it.
If a program makes a correct library call to glibc, and glibc returns a
result code that indicates success, and yet returns data the
contradicts the
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 11:53:20AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Thursday, October 17, 2002, at 10:35 AM, Ben Collins wrote:
No, sshd should be checking the validity of the data that is returned
to
it.
If a program makes a correct library call to glibc, and glibc returns a
On Thursday, October 17, 2002, at 12:04 PM, Ben Collins wrote:
Glibc expects the correct data from the kernel. So by your logic, the
kernel has the bug, ultimately.
Fine by me. If the kernel is breaking its interface with glibc, then
that's a kernel bug.
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
reopen 164768
Bug#164768: libc: IPv6 still not correct.
Bug reopened, originator not changed.
quit
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 09:50:10PM +0100, Matthew Vernon wrote:
[Please preserve the X-Debbugs-CC line]
Ben Collins writes:
And as I've said in the past numerous times. The fact that every other
IPv6 using program (including apache, bind, telnet, etc.) get this
right, and sshd
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 09:50:10PM +0100, Matthew Vernon wrote:
[Please preserve the X-Debbugs-CC line]
Ben Collins writes:
And as I've said in the past numerous times. The fact that every other
IPv6 using program (including apache, bind, telnet, etc.) get this
right, and sshd
[Please preserve the X-Debbugs-CC line]
Ben Collins writes:
And as I've said in the past numerous times. The fact that every other
IPv6 using program (including apache, bind, telnet, etc.) get this
right, and sshd doesn't, isn't libc's fault.
I've pushed this over to sshd, and we wont
Philip Blundell writes:
On Tue, 2002-10-15 at 00:56, Matthew Vernon wrote:
Executive summary: libc uses an incorrectly-sized sockaddr_in6
structure, which causes programs running under 2.2 kernels to get
error messages when in fact they are behving correctly. Hence the
important
On Tue, 2002-10-15 at 11:27, Matthew Vernon wrote:
Philip Blundell writes:
On Tue, 2002-10-15 at 00:56, Matthew Vernon wrote:
Executive summary: libc uses an incorrectly-sized sockaddr_in6
structure, which causes programs running under 2.2 kernels to get
error messages when in
On Tue, 2002-10-15 at 00:56, Matthew Vernon wrote:
Executive summary: libc uses an incorrectly-sized sockaddr_in6
structure, which causes programs running under 2.2 kernels to get
error messages when in fact they are behving correctly. Hence the
important severity.
From what you describe, I
Philip Blundell writes:
On Tue, 2002-10-15 at 00:56, Matthew Vernon wrote:
Executive summary: libc uses an incorrectly-sized sockaddr_in6
structure, which causes programs running under 2.2 kernels to get
error messages when in fact they are behving correctly. Hence the
important
On Tue, 2002-10-15 at 11:27, Matthew Vernon wrote:
Philip Blundell writes:
On Tue, 2002-10-15 at 00:56, Matthew Vernon wrote:
Executive summary: libc uses an incorrectly-sized sockaddr_in6
structure, which causes programs running under 2.2 kernels to get
error messages when in fact
Package: libc6
Version: 2.2.5-11.2
Severity: important
Tags: patch
Hi,
This bug was in fact once #82468 (now archived), but having checked
the libc code (and retried the test case), it still exists (and so
really needs fixing.
Executive summary: libc uses an incorrectly-sized sockaddr_in6
Package: libc6
Version: 2.2.5-11.2
Severity: important
Tags: patch
Hi,
This bug was in fact once #82468 (now archived), but having checked
the libc code (and retried the test case), it still exists (and so
really needs fixing.
Executive summary: libc uses an incorrectly-sized sockaddr_in6
31 matches
Mail list logo
