Received: from smtp2.Stanford.EDU (smtp2.Stanford.EDU [171.67.16.125]) by krbdev.mit.edu (8.9.3p2) with ESMTP id OAA25884; Sun, 23 Apr 2006 14:39:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.64.19.147]) by smtp2.Stanford.EDU (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k3NIdVJf015945 for ; Sun, 23 Apr 2006 11:39:32 -0700 Received: by windlord.stanford.edu (Postfix, from userid 1000) id A1F5CE7914; Sun, 23 Apr 2006 11:39:31 -0700 (PDT) From: Russ Allbery To: rt@krbdev.mit.edu Subject: Re: [krbdev.mit.edu #3685] EOF mistakenly interpreted as error causes re-use of closed stream In-Reply-To: (rainer's message of "Sun, 23 Apr 2006 07:39:49 -0400 (EDT)") Organization: The Eyrie References: Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 11:39:31 -0700 Message-Id: <8764l0xhjw.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110004 (No Gnus v0.4) XEmacs/21.4.18 (linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii RT-Send-Cc: X-RT-Original-Encoding: us-ascii Content-Length: 1250 rainer weikusat@sncag com via RT writes: > Russ Allbery writes: >> Yup, this is RT #3549, which I think includes a slightly better patch >> courtesy of Steve Langasek. > Presumably, because it returns a totally random synthetic system error > that bears absolutely no relation to the condition that caused it? > (keytab w/o kvno) Well, no, more because I think it's cleaner to detect EOF from the function return than explicitly call feof. It may well be that your choice of error code is better; that's a very good point. > Do me a favor and *DO NOT* send me any of this "Hey, I know this guy but > who an earth are you"-nonsense again, ok? It would be useful to be able to have a conversation about the merits of an approach without this sort of reaction. I was not intending to be offensive; I was intending to point out for the Kerberos developers that this should probably be merged with the other bug report for the same issue and was advocating a patch that I thought was cleaner. If you disagree and have good reason, as it sounds like you do, then by all means we should arrive at the best possible patch! -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu)