On Sat, Nov 30, 2024 at 04:46:14PM +0100, Christian Marangi wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 30, 2024 at 05:43:07PM +0200, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 30, 2024 at 12:33:09PM +0100, Christian Marangi wrote:
> > > If the coreutils variant of ping is used instead of the busybox one, the
> > > ping_do() command is broken. This comes by the fact that for coreutils
> > > ping, the ping IP needs to be the very last elements.
> > >
> > > To handle this, reorder the ping args and make $dip last element.
> > >
> > > The use of coreutils ping might be useful for case where busybox is not
> > > compiled with float interval support and ping command doesn't support
> > > 0.1 interval. (in such case a dedicated ping utility is installed
> > > instead)
> > >
> > > Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Fixes: 73bae6736b6b ("selftests: forwarding: Add initial testing framework")
> > > Signed-off-by: Christian Marangi <ansuelsmth@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> >
> > Do you mean the other way around? that the busybox ping is the broken one?
> > And by coreutils ping, you actually mean iputils ping, right?
>
> Mhh no busybox ping utility is problematic only if FLOAT INTERVAL is not
> enabled (aka 0.1 interval are not supported)
>
> Yes I'm referring to iputils ping. With that I notice args are wrongly
> parsed... especially with the -c option.
But isn't iputils ping what everybody else uses? I'm confused. I have
this version and the current syntax is not problematic for me.
$ ping -V
ping from iputils 20240905
libcap: yes, IDN: yes, NLS: no, error.h: yes, getrandom(): yes, __fpending(): yes
