netdev - Re: binding UDP port 0 with SO

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 2 Aug 2012 18:33:43 +0200
From:	"Tobias S. Josefowitz" <t.josefowitz@...il.com>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: binding UDP port 0 with SO_REUSEADDR

Hi again,

I need to say, after looking at "my" socket(7),

       SO_REUSEADDR
              Indicates  that  the rules used in validating addresses supplied
              in a bind(2) call should allow reuse of  local  addresses.   For
              AF_INET  sockets  this means that a socket may bind, except when
              there is an active listening socket bound to the address.   When
              the listening socket is bound to INADDR_ANY with a specific port
              then it is not possible to bind  to  this  port  for  any  local
              address.  Argument is an integer boolean flag.

I think the surprise-factor of the bind-0-behaviour even increased for
me. Is there a specific reason for handing out used ports when binding
port 0 with REUSEADDR?

Best,

Tobi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html