On Wed, Oct 05, 2022 at 03:38:09PM +0200, Laurent Vivier wrote: > On 9/28/22 08:12, David Gibson wrote: > > > @@ -253,9 +253,27 @@ static void net_stream_accept(void *opaque) > > > s->fd = fd; > > > s->nc.link_down = false; > > > net_stream_connect(s); > > > - snprintf(s->nc.info_str, sizeof(s->nc.info_str), > > > - "connection from %s:%d", > > > - inet_ntoa(saddr.sin_addr), ntohs(saddr.sin_port)); > > > + switch (saddr.ss_family) { > > > + case AF_INET: { > > > + struct sockaddr_in *saddr_in = (struct sockaddr_in *)&saddr; > > > + > > > + snprintf(s->nc.info_str, sizeof(s->nc.info_str), > > > + "connection from %s:%d", > > > + inet_ntoa(saddr_in->sin_addr), ntohs(saddr_in->sin_port)); > > So, here you print the address from which the connection has come - > > the remote address. > > > > > + break; > > > + } > > > + case AF_UNIX: { > > > + struct sockaddr_un saddr_un; > > > + > > > + len = sizeof(saddr_un); > > > + getsockname(s->listen_fd, (struct sockaddr *)&saddr_un, &len); > > > + snprintf(s->nc.info_str, sizeof(s->nc.info_str), > > > + "connect from %s", saddr_un.sun_path); > > Here you print the bound address - the local address. Does that make > > sense? I mean, in almost every occasion the remote Unix socket will > > be anonymous, so it probably doesn't make sense to display that, but > > is the bound address actually a useful substitute? > > > > Maybe it should just be "connect from Unix socket". > > > > I agree the needed information is "connected" and type "unix". > > But I think more information we can put here can be useful for a debugging purpose. Fair enough. I feel like "connect from" is still possible misleading. Maybe "connect via"? Or even "connection to Unix socket %s"? -- David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_ | _way_ _around_! http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson