[OpenWrt-Devel] Q: musl: ether_aton() behaves differently than in glibc
rosenp at gmail.com
Sat Jun 30 14:56:06 EDT 2018
On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 7:55 AM Zefir Kurtisi <zefir.kurtisi at neratec.com> wrote:
> I found a proprietary package stopped working after moving from glibc to musl and
> ended up identifying a difference in processing of ether_aton().
> In musl, the ether_addr string is expected to be NULL terminated (see
> https://git.musl-libc.org/cgit/musl/tree/src/network/ether.c#n20), while other
> libc implementations are less strict (i.e. only evaluate the leading ether_addr
> and ignoring subsequent chars).
> Tried to search the net for a reliable spec on whether it must be NULL terminated
> or not, but found nothing specific.
> What do you guys think, is musl just more strict here and therefore correct, or is
> the less strict behaviour of the other implementations the way to go?
Probably the musl behavior is correct.
> openwrt-devel mailing list
> openwrt-devel at lists.openwrt.org
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel at lists.openwrt.org
More information about the openwrt-devel