Re: [Evolution] kernel 2.5 and evolution

[Mika Liljeberg <mika liljeberg welho com>]

If I recall the earlier discussion, linux 2.4 did not correctly return
the peername from an accepted unix socket but instead returned "". This
was apparently fixed in linux 2.5.x. Ronald's patch emulates the 2.4
behaviour.

My guess (from a VERY cursory glance at the ORBIT code) is that
globbering the path prevents the ORB from reusing an accepted connection
for sending GIOP requests the other way and instead forces the ORB to
create a new client connection. Why unix sockets wouldn't wouldn't work
for bi-direction GIOP is anybody's guess. I don't think anyone has
bothered to find out, since everyone is convinced the bug is someone
else's problem.

Cheers,

        MikaL

On Tue, 2003-01-07 at 04:04, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
> If the problem is that the usock.sun_path char array isn't
> nul-terminated anymore (and it used to be), then the correct fix would
> be something more like:
>
> if (getpeername (GIOP_CONNECTION_GET_FD(fd_cnx),
>                  (struct sockaddr *)&fd_cnx->u.usock, &n)) < 0)
>         fn_cnx->u.usock.sun_path[0] = '\0';
> else
>         ((char *) &fn_cnx->u.usock)[n] = '\0';
>
> or, to be safer... perhaps zero the struct using memset before calling
> getpeername?
>
> either way Ron's fix is wrong as it negates the sun_path variable
> completely, making the call to getpeername utterly worthless.
>
> Jeff
>
> On Mon, 2003-01-06 at 20:29, Chris Toshok wrote:
> > I must be missing something, but what on earth is this fix supposed to
> > accomplish?  It actually fixes something?
> >
> > I can see doing something like:
> >
> > if (getpeername (GIOP_CONNECTION_GET_FD(fd_cnx),
> >                  (struct sockaddr *)&fd_cnx->u.usock, &n)) < 0)
> >     fn_cnx->u.usock.sun_path[0] = '\0';
> >
> > but blindly clobbering the path to the socket on the other end seems
> > like a bad idea.
> >
> > Chris
> >
> > On Sun, 2003-01-05 at 21:43, Ronald Kuetemeier wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jan 05, 2003 at 10:41:43PM +0200, Mika Liljeberg wrote:
> > > > By the way, your patch is included in Debian unstable
> > > > [liborbit0-0.5.17-5]:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- orbit-0.5.17.orig/src/IIOP/connection.c
> > > > +++ orbit-0.5.17/src/IIOP/connection.c
> > > > @@ -459,6 +459,7 @@
> > > >      fd_cnx->u.usock.sun_family = AF_UNIX;
> > > >      getpeername(GIOP_CONNECTION_GET_FD(fd_cnx),
> > > >         (struct sockaddr *)&fd_cnx->u.usock, &n);
> > > > +    fd_cnx->u.usock.sun_path[0] = '\0';
> > > >      break;
> > > >
> > > >  #ifdef HAVE_IPV6
> > > >
> > > > It may not be the correct fix but at least it solves the immediate
> > > > problem.
> > > It is the only place to fix it without interfering with other programs,
> > > that's why I did fixed it there.
> > > Good to see that some distributions prefer a stable system.
> > > Ronald
> > > > Cheers,
> > > >
> > > >         MikaL
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, 2003-01-05 at 20:23, Ronald Kuetemeier wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 05:40:45PM +0100, Joaquim Fellmann wrote:
> > > > > > On Sat, 2003-01-04 at 02:13, Ronald Kuetemeier wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sorry but _NO_ it's not 2.5, Gnome is broken,
> > > > > > > you can read all about it and get a patch on the evolution-hackers list.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Wrong too.
> > > > > > It seems to be Orbit assuming a kernel routine to return some value but
> > > > > > receiving something else. 
> > > > > > Actually it was a kernel bug (that got fixed) on which Orbit was
> > > > > > relying.
> > > > > > Problem is that Orbit didn't get fixed.
> > > > > Maybe you should read the thread on evolution-hackers,and then contact some kernel hackers, Alan, 
> > > > > Dave and Al come to mind.
> > > > > My patch resets new 2.5 behavior for/in Orbit to 2.4 behavior. But the real problem is within 
> > > > > Gnome, so far I only hear from the Gnome/Orbit maintainers it's the Kernel without any proof.  Just 
> > > > > saying so is not enough, I know it's kind of hard to find a problem in a few hundred thousand 
> > > > > kernel and Gnome/evolution source lines. Been there done that.  And if you take a look at the Gnome 
> > > > > 2.X source you might find that it's mood to talk about this any further, if you understand the 
> > > > > problem.
> > > > > Ronald 
> > > > >
> > > > > > A message on the linux kernel mailing list is refering to a bitkeeper
> > > > > > changeset at the origin of the "evolution case". Before this changeset
> > > > > > Evolution is dealing right with kernel 2.5 and after this changeset it
> > > > > > doesn't work anymore.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > See http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/linux/linux-kernel/2002-41/0444.html
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -- 
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Joaquim Fellmann <mljf altern org>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > evolution maillist  -  evolution ximian com
> > > > > > http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > evolution maillist  -  evolution ximian com
> > > > > http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > evolution maillist  -  evolution ximian com
> > > http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > evolution maillist  -  evolution ximian com
> > http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution