Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 16:46:11 +0200 From: Dimitry Andric <dimitry@andric.com> To: Glen Barber <glen.j.barber@gmail.com> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org, bug-followup@freebsd.org Subject: Re: bin/134694: gives false-positive when unable to obtain socket [WAS: sshd(8) - alert user when fails to execute from rc.d] Message-ID: <4A1417B3.3030303@andric.com> In-Reply-To: <4ad871310905200740n744f9b83j96db2a3c1a6bec43@mail.gmail.com> References: <4ad871310905181949s2874795eoa5ddf425746310bf@mail.gmail.com> <Ef8BU7l8PyKhYzlJNCX2WAa41WY@cgr/Aoyjz11KtFDB23HMnFSn04s> <4A13E180.1040606@andric.com> <4A13E6F7.7070309@glocalnet.net> <4A13E906.7020907@andric.com> <4ad871310905200740n744f9b83j96db2a3c1a6bec43@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2009-05-20 16:40, Glen Barber wrote: > sshd was listening on :25, both IPv4 and IPv6 > sendmail was listening on :25 (because I had forgotten to disable it) > > The system boots, and sendmail starts before sshd. When sshd starts > (or tries to) there is no console output that it had failed. The only > way you realize it is not running, is when you cannot remotely log in. Yes, this is unfortunate, but normal, as I explained in an earlier post. The sshd process does not return any error (and thus the /etc/rc.d script doesn't either), because it has no way to know that its forked copy died. The solution to this PR is "don't run stuff on conflicting ports". :)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4A1417B3.3030303>