On 5 July 2014 12:37, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> But then I found some MSDN documentation that says that Windows
> allows others to hijack your socket when you've set SO_REUSEADDR
> and the results are non-deterministic. They also created an
> SO_EXCLUSIVEADDRUSE and I'm getting confused what it really
On Sat, Jul 05, 2014 at 02:55:36PM -0400, Tim Hudson wrote:
> > Some google engineering (search) will show the the variety of
> confusion that this causes in cross-platform code.
>
> Start here for some interesting reading -
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/14388706/socket-options-so-reuseaddr
On Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 2:37 PM, Tim Hudson wrote:
> On 5/07/2014 2:14 PM, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 05, 2014 at 12:45:37PM -0400, Tim Hudson wrote:
> >> If you have SO_REUSEADDR set and a listener already in place you will
> >> start a new listener
> > No you won't. You will get a bind(
> Some google engineering (search) will show the the variety of
confusion that this causes in cross-platform code.
Start here for some interesting reading -
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/14388706/socket-options-so-reuseaddr-and-so-reuseport-how-do-they-differ-do-they-mean-t
You will find *man
On Sat, Jul 05, 2014 at 02:37:49PM -0400, Tim Hudson wrote:
> On 5/07/2014 2:14 PM, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 05, 2014 at 12:45:37PM -0400, Tim Hudson wrote:
> >> If you have SO_REUSEADDR set and a listener already in place you will
> >> start a new listener
> > No you won't. You will ge
Those who forget history are doomed to re-implement it, wrongly.
SO_REUSEADDR was implemented in 4.2BSD so that a server could restart without
waiting for the various FIN_WAIT timeouts to happen.
:)
/r$
--
Principal Security Engineer
Akamai Technologies, Cambridge, MA
IM: rs...@jabbe
On 5/07/2014 2:14 PM, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 05, 2014 at 12:45:37PM -0400, Tim Hudson wrote:
>> If you have SO_REUSEADDR set and a listener already in place you will
>> start a new listener
> No you won't. You will get a bind() error:
> socket(PF_INET, SOCK_STREAM, IPPROTO_TCP) = 3
> se
On Sat, Jul 05, 2014 at 12:45:37PM -0400, Tim Hudson wrote:
> On 5/07/2014 9:12 AM, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 05, 2014 at 08:13:04AM -0400, Eric Covener wrote:
> >> On Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 7:37 AM, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> >>> Does anybody have an idea why it's trying to do that, and why we
>
On 5/07/2014 9:12 AM, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 05, 2014 at 08:13:04AM -0400, Eric Covener wrote:
>> On Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 7:37 AM, Kurt Roeckx 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
>>>
On Sat, Jul 05, 2014 at 08:13:04AM -0400, Eric Covener wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 7:37 AM, Kurt Roeckx 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 tryin
On Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 7:37 AM, Kurt Roeckx 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 t
11 matches
Mail list logo
