View Issue Details

IDProjectCategoryView StatusLast Update
0001642unrealircdpublic2006-05-05 17:51
Reporterm Assigned To 
PrioritynormalSeveritymajorReproducibilityalways
Status closedResolutionno change required 
PlatformAllOSAllOS VersionAll
Product Version3.2-RC2 
Summary0001642: SETHOST does not propogate mode +xt
Descriptionm_vhost will propogate SETHOST followed by MODE +xt.
m_sethost will propogate SETHOST but does not send MODE +xt

Although server to server traffic may not be affected by this since they set the modes locally, services packages will not have the correct mode settings for users.
Steps To Reproduce/sethost myhost from IRC
TagsNo tags attached.
3rd party modules

Relationships

child of 0002748 closedsyzop 3.2.5 Release 

Activities

codemastr

2004-03-13 14:39

reporter   ~0005457

I guess I'd agree with +x, but not +t. +t means "is using a /vhost." Therefore, sethost should _not_ set +t.

m

2004-03-13 16:22

reporter   ~0005458

Then that is another bug in Unreal since internally it sets

    sptr->umodes |= UMODE_HIDE;
    sptr->umodes |= UMODE_SETHOST;

i.e. +xt.

syzop

2006-04-23 08:07

administrator   ~0011597

Hm, I would say the user must be made +xt after a SETHOST (and not +x without +t).
+x (without +t) indicates a cloaked host
+xt indicates some kind of custom host (vhost, sethost, etc)

That's what I would find logical... And is actually what I expect everywhere in the source.

Anyway, sounds like this bug is simply adding a MODE send? I'll do that then *addto3.2.5todolist*

syzop

2006-05-05 17:44

administrator   ~0011676

Hm... actually I don't see VHOST propogating the MODE to other servers either. It only sends MODE +xt to the local client ;p

syzop

2006-05-05 17:51

administrator   ~0011677

I'm marking this as closed then. As soon as services get a SETHOST, they will need to set umode +xt. Now thinking of it, it makes sense too, because else you get some kind of weird "intermediate period" (though, usually just a fraction of a second) / "race condition"... Though I agree it's in other parts as well.

Anyway, keeping it as-is.

Issue History

Date Modified Username Field Change
2004-03-11 17:47 m New Issue
2004-03-13 14:39 codemastr Note Added: 0005457
2004-03-13 16:22 m Note Added: 0005458
2006-04-23 08:07 syzop Note Added: 0011597
2006-04-23 08:07 syzop Relationship added child of 0002748
2006-05-05 17:44 syzop Note Added: 0011676
2006-05-05 17:51 syzop Status new => closed
2006-05-05 17:51 syzop Note Added: 0011677
2006-05-05 17:51 syzop Resolution open => no change required