X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-SWARE-Spam-Status:	No, hits=-5.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,KHOP_RCVD_TRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE,TW_CV
X-Spam-Check-By:	sourceware.org
X-Received:	by 10.194.7.131 with SMTP id j3mr4484669wja.23.1362753861514; Fri, 08 Mar 2013 06:44:21 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID:	<5139F946.1050507@gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 08 Mar 2013 16:44:22 +0200
From:	Noel Grandin <noelgrandin AT gmail DOT com>
User-Agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130215 Thunderbird/17.0.3
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: Unix domain accept() and getperrname() doesn't return the client address.
References:	<CANjopZEy2_yzpPpmxFtqBC_jhHNPyh7MHdeCY-QrizRoYM1_7Q AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <20130304093836 DOT GB5468 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <CANjopZHUZ-Azy+n5P1ZkNJuTb3c3zfj93bGz-pHfWra2aXTfRA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <20130307143712 DOT GA12359 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <CANjopZG9AiJUJ-8ax5_T=_VFHqHLVSA=2cGwYEH2d10LqEc7Vg AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <20130308132937 DOT GA15061 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <5139F448 DOT 4000808 AT gmail DOT com> <20130308143715 DOT GD15061 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de>
In-Reply-To:	<20130308143715.GD15061@calimero.vinschen.de>
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id:	<cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

On 2013-03-08 16:37, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Mar  8 16:23, Noel Grandin wrote:
>> On 2013-03-08 15:29, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>> You can call connect on both sides. But ultimately you're right, I
>>> guess. I never thought about it that way, and it seems nobody used
>>> AF_LOCAL datagrams so far. Weird. The problem is that the
>>> underlying protocol is AF_INET because Windows doesn't support
>>> AF_LOCAL.
>> If you're using UDP as your underlying protocol, UDP already
>> contains a port you can reply to.
> Yes, but the port isn't available to the application which opened a
> AF_LOCAL connection.  If recvfrom returns an AF_INET name, it's rather
> tricky to convert it into an AF_LOCAL name for a subsequent sendto call.
>
> [...time passes...]
>
> Or... are you suggesting that recvfrom returns some kind of fake AF_LOCAL
> name, which can be converted back to AF_INET by sendto on the fly?

Yup, sorry, friday afternoon, not being very good with the explaining thing.

It's obviously a localhost connection, so we only need a way of stashing 
and retrieving the port number, not the host part.


--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

- Raw text -