[1584] in Kerberos-V5-bugs
David Parter: Re: krb5-b4 telnet on solaris 2.4
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Sam Hartman)
Sun Aug 6 16:12:20 1995
To: krb5-bugs@MIT.EDU
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 1995 16:11:55 EDT
From: Sam Hartman <hartmans@MIT.EDU>
Will investigate/fix.
------- Forwarded Message
Received: from PACIFIC-CARRIER-ANNEX.MIT.EDU by po7.MIT.EDU (5.61/4.7) id AA07338; Sat, 5 Aug 95 00:51:32 EDT
Received: from venom.cs.wisc.edu by MIT.EDU with SMTP
id AA07648; Sat, 5 Aug 95 00:32:00 EDT
Message-Id: <9508050431.AA24334@venom.cs.wisc.edu>
Received: from localhost by venom.cs.wisc.edu; Fri, 4 Aug 95 23:31:59 -0500
To: Sam Hartman <hartmans@MIT.EDU>
Cc: "Nathan J. Dohm" <dohm+@cmu.edu>, kerberos@MIT.EDU
Subject: Re: krb5-b4 telnet on solaris 2.4
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 04 Aug 1995 12:27:24 EDT."
<199508041627.MAA19735@tertius.mit.edu>
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 1995 23:31:58 -0500
From: David Parter <dparter@cs.wisc.edu>
> Of course, these are guesses; it may just be completely
> unrelated to anything any of us think of.
In one of my earlier debugging sessions, I thought the problem was
related to spurious "urgent" data indications from select() in
process_rings(). Then it seemed to not be that at all....
I was right the first time. It seems that solaris 2.4 has a bug such
that recv() will cause false indications of urgent data, but read()
won't. change the recv() in process_rings to a read(), and the problem
goes away. This is SUN bug #1185700 (which I found on sunsolve AFTER I
had found the problem, but they couldn't find when I called to report it
earlier... oh well).
--david
------- End of Forwarded Message
