On Sat, Jul 05, 2014 at 08:13:04AM -0400, Eric Covener wrote: > 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.
man socket(7) documents that behavior on Linux. They also say that you ussually don't notice it because most things always set SO_REUSEADDR. So it seems to me like the behavior of that piece of code will at least don't do what you want it to do on Linux so other than being weird it looks like an other reason to just drop it. Kurt ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List openssl-dev@openssl.org Automated List Manager majord...@openssl.org
