[Bug 236493] netstat output is misleading when -W is not used

[bugzilla-noreply at freebsd.org]

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=236493

            Bug ID: 236493
           Summary: netstat output is misleading when -W is not used
           Product: Base System
           Version: 11.2-RELEASE
          Hardware: Any
                OS: Any
            Status: New
          Severity: Affects Many People
          Priority: ---
         Component: bin
          Assignee: bugs at FreeBSD.org
          Reporter: daniel at dan42.com

I was using netstat to troubleshoot some issues and got the following output:

# netstat -AanL
Current listen queue sizes (qlen/incqlen/maxqlen)
Tcpcb            Proto Listen                           Local Address     
fffff8003b86d410 tcp4  0/0/128                          192.168.255.37.420 
fffff800bddcd000 tcp4  0/0/128                          192.168.255.37.420 
fffff8015eaf1820 tcp4  0/0/128                          *.80               
fffff8004d87d000 tcp4  0/0/10                           127.0.0.1.25       
fffff8004d87d410 tcp4  0/0/128                          *.22               
fffff8004d87d820 tcp6  0/0/128                          *.22               
fffff8004d633000 tcp4  0/0/128                          192.168.255.37.112 

So I wasted hours looking for something on 192.168.255.37:420 when in fact it
was just truncated:

# netstat -AanLW
Current listen queue sizes (qlen/incqlen/maxqlen)
Tcpcb            Proto Listen                           Local Address           
fffff8003b86d410 tcp4  0/0/128                          192.168.255.37.4201     
fffff800bddcd000 tcp4  0/0/128                          192.168.255.37.4200     
fffff8015eaf1820 tcp4  0/0/128                          *.80                    
fffff8004d87d000 tcp4  0/0/10                           127.0.0.1.25            
fffff8004d87d410 tcp4  0/0/128                          *.22                    
fffff8004d87d820 tcp6  0/0/128                          *.22                    
fffff8004d633000 tcp4  0/0/128                          192.168.255.37.11211    

I can understand truncating a symbolic name, but truncating the port number
like that (without any indication it was truncated) is *very* misleading. Same
thing I imagine if you truncate an IP address (4 or 6) in a way that makes it
look like the truncated data is a valid IP address.

Please either
a) never truncate numeric addresses and port numbers (-n implies -W)
b) indicate when a field is truncated (ex: 192.168.255.37.11* or
192.168.255*.11211)

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.