456200+ entries in 0.294s
mircea_popescu: can you see any reason he'd suspect
the ip provided by
the socket ?
mircea_popescu: no, retarded is a different degree. has
to be actively dysfunctional somehow
mircea_popescu: i am inclined
to believe
this is more likely
the result of original author having nfi how
tcp works rathger
than having an idea about some obscure weakness he's deliberately mitigating
mircea_popescu: this sounds like an argument against assfucking. "because
there's a cunt
there"
mod6: yeah,
the network stuff (having read Stevens' stuff (UNIX Network Programming Vol 1&2)) makes me cringe.
ben_vulpes: why not just
talk on
the open connection?
ben_vulpes: what do you mean "answer": attempt
to
talk
to
the provided IP instead of
the connection abstraction provided by
the machine?
ben_vulpes: myes, i see
that. what i'm not 100% on is
the impact
to
the receiving node of having garbage in
that field.
ben_vulpes: i'm rusty on
this particular bit of logic
ben_vulpes: i might be colossally retarded
this is always possible
ben_vulpes: by virtue of
the socket being opened,
the receiving node should be able
to just write
to
that (file descriptor, i
think is
the abstraction?) and let
the NIC handle
the package addressing - correct?
ben_vulpes: a) how is
this an actually necessary
thing
ben_vulpes: myeah
this gets back
to my question about
the necessity of
the IP address in
the protocol.
mircea_popescu: more insane
than requiring machines
to know
their name.
mircea_popescu: well... you don't plan on being
there long anyway, so.
mod6: yeah
that /27 was
through Qwest (now CenturyLink (usg isp)), now 1 static is included from cumcast "out of
the box" iirc.
mod6: yeah i
think my /27 used
to be like ~$10/mo
mircea_popescu: computers get
their public names
the same way women do : owner states it.
mod6: either have I, but glibc is full of
trickery.
trinque: I have no strong opinion regarding uclibc vs glibc, as I haven't used
the former at all before
this
mod6: I
think
trinque and I need like 2 evenings of working on it
to find out how ugly its gonna be.
mod6: So, I
think I'm gonna stay
the course on
trying
to patch 4.8.4... if we get into a giant hassle with it, we'll cut bait for
the
time being and
try
to build something like 3.7 and
try
that.
mircea_popescu: mod6 yeah, definitely. esp if current one giving you
trouble.
mod6: ah, hmm. sure, we could give
that a shot instead if you
think its worth my/our
time.
mod6: or upgrade
to a much more uplevel version of gcc
to
test and see if
that works instead. iirc, version 5.x included a fix for
this? maybe 4.9.x did
too.
mod6: if not, we might have
to McGuyver our own patch.
mod6: by "link properly", i mean overcoming
this:
mod6: <+asciilifeform> mod6: not sure how you intend
to build a dns-using
thing with uclibc <<
this is a chicken/egg problem yeah. maybe we can't get it fully built because of
the whole gethostbyname libnss bullshit. but if we can at least ensure
that it'll link properly,
that's huge.
then, even if it's not fully statuc because of
that, we can amputate dns with your patches and retry.
mircea_popescu: anwyay.
there's no argument
that
the irc
thing has
to go.
mod6: I'll put it in
the list. We'll revisit all of
this soon.
mircea_popescu: this
thing is not so much an emergency as something
that needs
to be done. if it sees
the light of box
this month say it's perfect.
mod6: Does
that make sense? Or am I off course here?
decimation: at any rate, I'm going on a geologic
tour
tomorrow, I need
to catch some sleep
mod6: For me, doing
this first is imperitive as even if
the DNS amputation works, if we can't compile it with uclibc, it doesn't matter anyway.
mod6: Probably need a week
to sort it out -- might
take rest of month.
mod6: I, with
trinque's help, need
to patch gcc 4.8.4 with gentoo using /etc/portage/patches via ebuild flag(?). If
that works,
then I can
test
that
the R.I. will link properly. If
that works, maybe we finally have static apple pie.
decimation: asciilifeform: did you see
those gcc bugs?
mircea_popescu: mod6 depends on how advanced
the work is. how advanced is it ?
mod6: I
think
that would be
the best course of action.
mod6: So currently, I'm
trying
to get gcc patched
to see if we can even build
the R.I. with gcc/uclibc. Would it be prudent
to finish
that work before moving on
to
testing
this DNS amputation?
mod6: yeah, it's good. breaks
things up a bit, easier
to read.
mod6: <+mircea_popescu> mod6 we've not yet put
the entire
that change in yet, apparently, because one per. << makes sense. just wanted
to "voice"
that concern.
decimation: why not ircd
that is linked
to assbot wot?
mircea_popescu: mod6 we've not yet put
the entire
that change in yet, apparently, because one per.
mod6: CAddress addrConnect("92.243.23.21", 6667); // irc.lfnet.org << would it be wiser if we spin up an ircd special for
this purpose ? << i
think we should make
this ip non-static, configurable from a file.
these IPs can change at anytime/be honeynet, etc.
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform i
think
they run more or less basic ircd ya
mircea_popescu: part of it is
to have a backup in case lfnet is a piece of shit /
the enemy. which is pretty likely.
mircea_popescu: part of it is
to see how well bitcoin holds up by being hosed from
the irc side.
mod6: well, i've run ircd hybrid many
times myself. ran one for /years/. but not sure what lfnet is about really. need
to look into
that. but whatever it might be, it'll need
to be resistant
to getting packeted, unless just run for a short
time for
testing.
ben_vulpes: aha well i'll be
testing it on my own checkbook's back anyways
mircea_popescu: ben_vulpes no,
this is a
temporary
test
thing,
to see just how bad alf's latest butchery affects
things
mircea_popescu: mod6 how valuable and how difficult dja
think spinning an ircd compatible with lfnet would be ?