Re: [btns] Q: How to deal with connection latch breaks?

Michael Richardson <> Mon, 27 July 2009 17:01 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6983928C245 for <>; Mon, 27 Jul 2009 10:01:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.354
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.354 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, J_CHICKENPOX_15=0.6]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 67Os2Ce6KH5L for <>; Mon, 27 Jul 2009 10:01:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0F2228C2F8 for <>; Mon, 27 Jul 2009 10:01:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 030B634263; Mon, 27 Jul 2009 17:01:24 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFAC23EC5; Mon, 27 Jul 2009 13:01:23 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <>
To: Nicolas Williams <>
In-Reply-To: <20090726221331.GS1020@Sun.COM>
References: <> <20090726221331.GS1020@Sun.COM>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.1; nmh 1.1; XEmacs 21.4 (patch 21)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 13:01:23 -0400
Message-ID: <>
Cc:, Mike Eisler <>,
Subject: Re: [btns] Q: How to deal with connection latch breaks?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Better-Than-Nothing-Security Working Group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 17:01:24 -0000

Hash: SHA1

>>>>> "Nicolas" == Nicolas Williams <> writes:
    >> My conclusion is that the API ought to provide information for
    >> the application about the connection latching, and it just does
    >> not seem to be there.  If you can point me to a discussion of
    >> this topic on the WG mail list, then I'll clear.  I'm not trying
    >> to alter consensus, but I do want to make sure that this topic
    >> was considered.

    Nicolas> APIs are nice, but existing apps won't use them until
    Nicolas> updated, and anyways, connection latching adds value even
    Nicolas> without adding APIs, which means we need a default response
    Nicolas> to latch breaks in the absence of new APIs (either because
    Nicolas> not implemented or not used).

  So, errno value from write(2) is not a new API.
  A new errno value should provide enough information, I think.

  However, an application might know what to do with ETIMEOUT, while it
would not know what to do with EUNLATCHED or some such....

- -- 
]     Y'avait une poule de jammé dans l'muffler!!!!!!!!!        |  firewalls  [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON    |net architect[
] |device driver[
]    h("Just another Debian GNU/Linux using, kernel hacking,    ruby  guy");  [
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Finger me for keys