On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 06:15:43AM +0200, Marc Lehmann wrote: > When doing lots of connections in "quick" succession (say, one per > second), then, after a while, connections fails with: > > poll: protocol failure in circuit setup > > This is not due to the inetd rate limit (which I changed to 1000/minute > for the shell service). > > Replacing rsh-redone-server by rsh-server fixes this problem completely.
I'll have a look at the difference between rsh-server and rsh-redone-server. I guess it is because rsh-redone-server lets some sockets linger longer than rsh-server... > Sometimes I get this message in the syslog: > > Oct 6 06:02:47 (none) in.rshd: Connection from cerebro on illegal port 0. This is about the primary connection, not the stderr connection. > Sometime this: > > Oct 6 06:02:43 (none) in.rshd: Error while receiving stderr port number from > cerebro: Success That can only be if read() returns 0, which means the other end closed the connection. I should indeed change the error message. > Sometimes none except the normal in.rsh connection from and pam messages. > > Incidentaly, port 0 is a valid stderr port number in the protocol, so this > should be supported. It accepts port 0 as a stderr port without errors, but will not set up a socket in that case. > I will likely not be able to test this further, as the other > incompatibilities of rsh-redone finally forced me to uninstall it > everywhere, but the above should makme it possible at least to fix the > stderr-port-is-0 bug. Thanks for the bugreport. By the way, how many rsh connections per second do you get? And if you run netstat, do you see sockets in TIME_WAIT (or other _WAIT) states? -- Met vriendelijke groet / with kind regards, Guus Sliepen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature