On 01/07 06:21, Nicholas Marriott wrote: > On Fri, Jan 07, 2011 at 08:48:20AM -0800, Jeremy Evans wrote: > > On 01/07 09:31, Nicholas Marriott wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 03:32:17PM -0800, Jeremy Evans wrote: > > > > This patch adds unix datagram socket support to nc(1). It's basically > > > > the same patch I sent last June (see > > > > http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=127627296925965&w=2), but updated > > > > for -current. > > > > > > > > Tested on amd64. Doesn't appear to cause any regressions to existing > > > > support, tested with unix stream and IP stream and datagram sockets. > > > > Looking for OKs. > > > > > > > > Jeremy > > > > > > Hmm, ISTR I meant to look at this ages ago but it got lost, sorry. > > > > > > So you are overloading -u to mean UDP without -l and datagram with -l? > > > I guess this makes sense, but we need man page changes? > > > > If you mean -U instead of -l, yes. -u without -U is IP UDP, -u with -U > > is unix datagram. The man page doesn't say you can't use -u and -U > > together, and it doesn't say that -U means unix stream sockets, though > > that is currently all that -U supports. However, I think that making > > some clarifications to the man page would helpful. > > Yes, sorry, I meant -U. > > This mostly looks fine to me, a few comments: > > I don't much like using mktemp at all. How about just plain requiring -s > with -Uu?
It's annoying to the user to have to specify it when they won't usually care. If you are worried about security, guenther@ thought this usage was secure: http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=120299257422367&w=2 I'd prefer we always use a random socket over forcing the user to specify one, but I thinking giving the user choice is best, just like we give them choice of sending address in the IP case. > Do you actually hit the ENOBUFS condition in atomicio.c? Yes. That's the only reason I knew to add it. Jeremy
