From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Mar 12 22:56:37 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC590106566B for ; Sat, 12 Mar 2011 22:56:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rmacklem@uoguelph.ca) Received: from esa-jnhn.mail.uoguelph.ca (esa-jnhn.mail.uoguelph.ca [131.104.91.44]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9428C8FC0C for ; Sat, 12 Mar 2011 22:56:37 +0000 (UTC) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApwEAFWJe02DaFvO/2dsb2JhbACEPaJ+sFGPf4Eng0V2BIUrhyc X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.62,309,1297054800"; d="scan'208";a="114089583" Received: from erie.cs.uoguelph.ca (HELO zcs3.mail.uoguelph.ca) ([131.104.91.206]) by esa-jnhn-pri.mail.uoguelph.ca with ESMTP; 12 Mar 2011 17:56:36 -0500 Received: from zcs3.mail.uoguelph.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by zcs3.mail.uoguelph.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D93DB3F49; Sat, 12 Mar 2011 17:56:36 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2011 17:56:36 -0500 (EST) From: Rick Macklem To: Doug Barton Message-ID: <1745116963.1290533.1299970596486.JavaMail.root@erie.cs.uoguelph.ca> In-Reply-To: <4D7BEF8F.9080604@dougbarton.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [172.17.91.201] X-Mailer: Zimbra 6.0.10_GA_2692 (ZimbraWebClient - IE8 (Win)/6.0.10_GA_2692) Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: statd/lockd startup failure X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2011 22:56:37 -0000 > On 03/12/2011 02:21, Daniel Braniss wrote: > > The problem with trying to get the same port for all > > tcp/udp/inet/inet6 > > though might succeed most of the time, will fail sometimes, then > > what? > > Can you please describe the scenario when it's completely impossible > to > find a port that's open on all 4 families? > > > I saw Doug's commnent, and also the:), it's not as simple as > > tracking port > > 80 or 25, needs some efford, but it's deterministic/programable, and > > worst case > > you can still use the -p option (which again will fail sometimes:-). > > Given that Rick has already written the patch, I don't think it's at > all > unreasonable to put it in as the first choice, perhaps with a fallback > to picking any available port if there isn't one available for all 4 > families. > I suppose the patch could be changed to switch to "allow any port#" after N failed attempts at getting the same one. (I'll admit I have troiuble seeing why getting the same port# would fail "forever" unless all ports are in use and, if that's the case, you're snookered.) My only concern with the "same port# patch" is that it is more complex and, therefore, somewhat riskier w.r.t. my having gotten it wrong. > Meanwhile, I don't think I'm the only person who has ever had trouble > trying to track down network traffic from "random" ports that would > prefer that doing so not be made harder by having the same service on > the same host using 4 different ports. >