jim@mcvax.UUCP (06/30/83)
Yes, I think we could get by with using net.bugs.4bsd, there isn't much traffic on it (we don't get much anyway). As a starter, has anyone tried to bind() to a socket in the UNIX domain? Fun, isn't it? The exact fix depends on what you think the format of an address in the UNIX domain should be, whether it should have "family" specifier or just the pathname (I plump for the latter). And isn't 14 characters a bit short for the FULL pathname? But anyway, you need to do a check on whether namei() sets u.u_error in unp_bind() in uipc_usrreq.c, otherwise maknode() tries to do something with the illegal value set into u.u_pdir by namei(), and SPLAT! So I fixed that, and the system decided to go into a tight loop if you try to interrupt a process while it is listen()ing but has had no connect()ions yet. I know where it is looping, but haven't got round to fixing it yet. To save time we changed the application program to use the TCP/IP domain, and, what do you know, in the same state as above, we got "panic: tcp_output"! A fix for this one is to add a case TCPS_CLOSED: tcp_usrclosed() in tcp_usrreq.c before the line tp = tcp_close(); (This bug occured, though the code is not the same, in 4.1A too). These things are not so easy to track down when /etc/savecore continues to say "dumping 0 bytes of core in vmcore.7" on reboot. Anyone have a fix for that? Do we all have these bugs? Are we all running the same version of 4.1C (ours dates from beginning of April)? Not afraid to let the hedgehogs call him Jungle Jim, Jim McKie ....decvax!mcvax!jim ...philabs!mcvax!jim
mark@cbosgd.UUCP (06/30/83)
I think net.bugs.something is appropriate, after all, we're going to post bug reports and fixes primarily, right? I don't expect to see much traffic of the "How do I open a socket to phone E.T." variety for quite some time. Also, 4.1c is an early 4.2, so we might as well just form a 4.2 newsgroup. Our choices are: (a) net.bugs.4bsd (b) net.bugs.42bsd (c) net.bugs.4bsd.2 (The "2" on the end could possibly become "42" or "4.2" or whatever). I lean towards net.bugs.4bsd, but am concerned about collisions with current 4.1bsd traffic. We do have precedent - there is a net.bugs.usg which serves for System III, System V, etc. No new newsgroups for each version. Also note that there is no hope of any more 4.1bsd bugs posted to net.bugs.4bsd getting fixed in 4.2 - the code has been frozen for 4.2. (No, I don't know when it's coming out.) I also want to make sure we all understand that bug reports for 4.1c and 4.2 are primarily for users to help each other out with common bugs. I'm sure there will be a flurry of 4.1c problems, but this is only because 4.1c is a dot release and intended for limited distribution only. Berkeley has actively discouraged people from running it and does not claim it's sufficiently polished to be considered a real Berkeley distribution. So when you see all these bug reports, don't conclude that Berkeley UNIX is buggy - when the final distribution comes out, I'm confident it will be solid as a rock. Mark Horton