From owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Sep 2 07:50:28 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@hub.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8053B16A4D7 for ; Thu, 2 Sep 2004 07:50:28 +0000 (GMT) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [216.136.204.21]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34A4343D2D for ; Thu, 2 Sep 2004 07:50:27 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (gnats@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i827oRnq094030 for ; Thu, 2 Sep 2004 07:50:27 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) id i827oQfh094029; Thu, 2 Sep 2004 07:50:26 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 07:50:26 GMT Message-Id: <200409020750.i827oQfh094029@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org From: Maxim Konovalov Subject: Re: kern/71274: Frequent bind()/connect()'s assign same local ports to different sockets X-BeenThere: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: Maxim Konovalov List-Id: Bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 07:50:28 -0000 The following reply was made to PR kern/71274; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Maxim Konovalov To: Dmitry Dvoinikov Cc: bug-followup@freebsd.org Subject: Re: kern/71274: Frequent bind()/connect()'s assign same local ports to different sockets Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 11:46:22 +0400 (MSD) On Thu, 2 Sep 2004, 13:29+0600, Dmitry Dvoinikov wrote: > Yes, it helps, obviously, as now it has to run through > portrange.last ports before it gets a duplicate, and this > is unlikely to happen within an msl. > > Anyhow, from my point of view this is still a bug, > because the client code fails for no apparent reason, > only because the random number is so unlucky to be > picked up to match with the live socket. This effectively > means that no matter what the load is, there is a chance > that connection just fails randomly for no reason. Agreed. That is why I am strongly against all those obscure defaults especially in -STABLE branches. -- Maxim Konovalov