Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2026 10:05:37 +0100 From: =?utf-8?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=C3=B8rgrav?= <des@FreeBSD.org> To: Dewayne Geraghty <dewayne@heuristicsystems.com.au> Cc: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Strange sockstat entries Message-ID: <86ms1e2uxq.fsf@ltc.des.dev> In-Reply-To: <2b052936-205f-4fa3-bb35-6a9410b995a6@heuristicsystems.com.au> (Dewayne Geraghty's message of "Thu, 12 Feb 2026 14:59:47 %2B1100") References: <2133E787-9AF9-4999-83DC-83B4C0CABD32@lafn.org> <864insbxvk.fsf@ltc.des.dev> <30A38850-8D1B-4DF1-ADE9-9CFFD238EABF@lafn.org> <2b052936-205f-4fa3-bb35-6a9410b995a6@heuristicsystems.com.au>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
Dewayne Geraghty <dewayne@heuristicsystems.com.au> writes: > As mysterious as ?? appears in sockstat output it may convey a problem > that is occurring between the synchronisation of the two source lists. > > Wouldn't displaying sockets owned by the kernel also be helpful in > diagnosing connection issues? It would be helpful to appear as > PID/UID=0. Why are you repeating what I wrote four days ago back to me? > An aside, when the kernel is involved in TLS negotiation, does the > socket (currently) remain hidden until its handed to the process? No. DES -- Dag-Erling Smørgrav - des@FreeBSD.orghome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?86ms1e2uxq.fsf>