Hi, Dimitry On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 10:46 AM, Dimitry Andric <dimi...@andric.com> wrote: > 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". :) >
I absolutely agree about not running sshd on conflicting ports. After a bit more testing, I found that "most" other services will complain when they cannot obtain the requested socket, and you will see a failure notice via the rc.d script. My concern is when someone has a "definite need" to run sshd on a non-standard port less than, say 1024 for example. This is the real reason I initially created the PR and posted to hackers@ about this -- I'd like to fix it. But, I want to fix it the right way, and not hack a crude solution. Regards, -- Glen Barber _______________________________________________ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"