[Bug 191586] FreeBSD doesn't validate negative edgecases in bind(2)/connect(2)/listen(2) like POSIX requires

bugzilla-noreply at freebsd.org bugzilla-noreply at freebsd.org
Thu Jul 3 22:01:39 UTC 2014


Terry Lambert <lambert.tr at gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
                 CC|                            |lambert.tr at gmail.com

--- Comment #2 from Terry Lambert <lambert.tr at gmail.com> ---
Some valid statements, some invalid.  You would have to configure the VSX4
tests correctly to expect the results that you'd get, but some of these are
optional implement, while still being conformant.

For the interfaces in question, the relevant documents are:

Comments are by API:


The EAFNOSUPPORT is non-optional; however, the test code is bogus, in that it
has to specify an existing address family, such as AF_INET, rather than a
potentially loaded/pluggable address family.  Because this is a negative
assertion test, it needs to hit on something that's actually guaranteed to be
there, such as AF_INET r AF_UNIX.

The EINVAL in bind(2) is an optional error return: "The bind() function may
fail if..."; this indicates that bounds checking of the length is not a
requirement.  The rationale for this is to allow a larger-than-needed buffer to
be used for a sockaddr and take it to a sockaddr_in as a void value, if needed,
such that different values can be used (this is derived from the SVID III
definition for the TLI implementation of separation of naming, from which the
POSIX tests are originally derived).  You could (potentially) make a case for
bounds checking for a known address family (not pluggable) on the basis of the
decode of the sin_family/sin_addr tuple, but the standard does not require it.


The EINVAL is similarly an optional error return: "The connect() function may
fail if"... same base rationale.


The EDESTADDRREQ is similarly non-optional; again, however, the test is bogus
for its use of an out of range/undefined address family definition.



I believe Andrew and Neil would be open to giving a select group of FreeBSD
developers access to the actual test suite, perhaps later this year, assuming
additional discussion and closed access to the test suite to a select group.

It should very much be noted that in any conflict between the test suite and
the standard, the test suite is assumed to be more correct than the actual
standard, unless you file a TSD (Test Suite Deficiency) report, and The Open
Group and the Austin Group agree that a test suite change is warranted by the
rationale for the report.

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

More information about the freebsd-standards mailing list