On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 11:11:58AM +0200, Vincent Gross wrote:
> I have a regression test for this based on Alexander Markert code +
> rework by mpi@, do you want me to commit it right now ?
Finally I have commited the fix. Could you take care of the
regression test?
bluhm
On Mon, Jul 16 2018, Vincent Gross wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jul 2018 19:54:26 +0200
> Alexander Bluhm wrote:
>
>>
>> If it is a temporary problem, that will go away when the content
>> of the socket buffer is sent away, we should block or return
>> EWOULDBLOCK. For a permanent problem return
On Thu, 12 Jul 2018 19:54:26 +0200
Alexander Bluhm wrote:
>
> If it is a temporary problem, that will go away when the content
> of the socket buffer is sent away, we should block or return
> EWOULDBLOCK. For a permanent problem return EMSGSIZE. Non atomic
> operations can be split in smaller
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 06:05:14PM +0200, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
> --8<--
> space = sbspace(so, >so_snd);
> if (flags & MSG_OOB)
> space += 1024;
> if ((atomic && resid > so->so_snd.sb_hiwat) ||
>
On Wed, Jun 27 2018, Vincent Gross wrote:
> So a while back Alexander Markert sent a bug report regarding sendmsg()
> behaviour with IP_SENDSRCADDR :
>
> https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech=149276833923905=2
>
> This impacts our dnsmasq port :
>
> https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech=149234052220818=2
So a while back Alexander Markert sent a bug report regarding sendmsg()
behaviour with IP_SENDSRCADDR :
https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech=149276833923905=2
This impacts our dnsmasq port :
https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech=149234052220818=2
Alexander Markert shows in the first thread the
