bin/84106: inet_pton(AF_INET6, ....) seems too permissive

Hajimu UMEMOTO ume at freebsd.org
Wed Jul 27 14:50:28 GMT 2005


The following reply was made to PR bin/84106; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Hajimu UMEMOTO <ume at freebsd.org>
To: Mikhail Teterin <mi+kde at aldan.algebra.com>
Cc: FreeBSD-gnats-submit at freebsd.org, standards at freebsd.org
Subject: Re: bin/84106: inet_pton(AF_INET6, ....) seems too permissive
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 23:42:57 +0900

 Hi,
 
 >>>>> On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 09:03:27 -0400
 >>>>> Mikhail Teterin <mi+kde at aldan.algebra.com> said:
 
 mi+kde> On Wednesday 27 July 2005 06:42 am, Hajimu UMEMOTO wrote:
 mi+kde> = mi> 		1:2:3:4:5:6:7::8
 mi+kde> = mi> 	or
 mi+kde> = mi> 		1:2:3:4:5:6::7:8
 mi+kde> = mi> 	inet_pton should reject (return 0) both of these addresses.
  
 mi+kde> = No, I don't think so.  I cannot see such restriction in RFC 2373 2.2
 mi+kde> = Text Representation of Addresses.  Isn't it a problem of NSPR's
 mi+kde> = addtest?
 
 mi+kde> I thought, 8 positions is the most an IPv6 address can have. This
 mi+kde> strings have 9, don't they?
 
 Ah, yes.  I didn't understand your point, correctly.
 Since it seems that this problem was fixed in BIND9's inet_pton.c,
 I've just commited the fix which was taken from it:
 
 http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/lib/libc/net/inet_pton.c.diff?r1=1.11&r2=1.12
 
 Please try it, and let me know the result.
 
 Sincerely,
 
 --
 Hajimu UMEMOTO @ Internet Mutual Aid Society Yokohama, Japan
 ume at mahoroba.org  ume@{,jp.}FreeBSD.org
 http://www.imasy.org/~ume/


More information about the freebsd-bugs mailing list