Re: Nsock unconnected sockets

[Kris Katterjohn <katterjohn () gmail com>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 10/03/2010 08:03 PM, David Fifield wrote:
> Some questions:
>
> 1. What do you think of the names nsock_setup_udp and sock:setup? The
>    way to understand how it works is to know that "setup" is what you
>    use instead of "connect" when you want an unconnected socket. Is
>    there a name other than "setup" that conveys that better?

I don't particularly like "setup" because with a name like that it sounds like
you should call it for every socket, not just for unconnected ones.

I can't think of a better separate function name right now either, but an API
change of something like

nmap.new_socket(<proto>, <family>)

with optional arguments is what I first thought of as an alternative because
your "setup" is akin to an actual socket() call anyway.

However, I'm not sure if setup() can be called multiple times or not, or if
new sockets should be created (in fact, I'm not sure about connect either).

> 2. What do you think of the NSE API,
>    s:setup("udp")
>    s:setup("udp", "ipv4")
>    s:setup("udp", "ipv6")
>    We have a precedent for using "udp" as a protocol identifier. I think
>    that the strings "ipv4" and "ipv6" are better than constants like
>    nmap.AF_INET and nmap.AF_INET6. Another possibility would be "in" and
>    "in6" but I think the ones I've chosen are easier to remember.

Using "udp" sounds good, but my resolve() and address_family() functions use
"inet" and "inet6", which I like best (I considered "ipv4" and "ipv6" for
them, too).  I don't like the nmap.AF_INET constants either, but using "inet"
in there just seems better to me.

In NSE we have new_socket, connect, bind, (the new) sendto, etc. which are all
certainly modeled on the Sockets API, so maybe that's why "inet" seems better
to me: it's basically the Sockets way of saying IP.  It just seems to fit.

> David Fifield

Cheers,
Kris Katterjohn

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
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=8gYq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Sent through the nmap-dev mailing list
http://cgi.insecure.org/mailman/listinfo/nmap-dev
Archived at http://seclists.org/nmap-dev/