On 11/20/06, Florian Echtler echtler@in.tum.de wrote:
Hi everybody,
we are using a customized tracking software. This is a windows software, but we decided some time ago that it would be more flexible to be able to use it under Linux, too, so I gave it a try with Wine.
As this software communicates with customized (expensive) cameras via UDP, I noted a strange bug in the Wine debug channel "winsock": the software was sending UDP packets to IP _254_.255.255.255 (note the first octet). After some experimentation, I noticed that while Windows just sends this as a broadcast packet, Linux rejects this address, because the corresponding RFC states that the network 240.0.0.0/4 is reserved and should not be used.
I therefore build a small patch which checks for these strange adresses and replaces them by broadcast adresses. This enabled our software to work. However, the question now is whether it makes sense to include this patch into Wine? On the one hand, it increases the similarity between Wine's behaviour and Windows's, OTOH it decreases Wine's RFC compliance..
Comments? Please CC me as I have not subscribed to the list.
Thanks, Yours, Florian
You can use a iptables rule to do the same thing. Right?
Jesse
As this software communicates with customized (expensive) cameras via UDP, I noted a strange bug in the Wine debug channel "winsock": the software was sending UDP packets to IP _254_.255.255.255 (note the first octet). After some experimentation, I noticed that while Windows just sends this as a broadcast packet, Linux rejects this address, because the corresponding RFC states that the network 240.0.0.0/4 is reserved and should not be used.
You can use a iptables rule to do the same thing. Right?
Uh.. I'm not sure about that. 254.* is reserved in the appropriate RFC and the kernel seems to reject it already in the send() call.. But I'd like to be proven wrong :-)
Florian
-
Florian Echtler -
Jesse Allen