On Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 7:37 AM, Kurt Roeckx <k...@roeckx.be> wrote: > Does anybody have an idea why it's trying to do that, and why we > shouldn't just do SO_REUSEADDR the first time? Was there some > OS that maybe did strange things when trying to use SO_REUSEADDR > and it was already in use?
FWLIW: I've seen this pattern in some other proprietary software, where they try hard to not set SO_REUSEADDR unless it appears needed due to a bind failure. But whatever they were working around, it is detrimental to modern Linux where the outgoing TIME_WAIT socket has to also have been opened with SO_REUSEADDR for the reuse to be allowed. ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List openssl-dev@openssl.org Automated List Manager majord...@openssl.org
