linux-kernel - Re: Error binding socket: address already in use

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]

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0609131645560.20792@yvahk01.tjqt.qr>
Date:	Wed, 13 Sep 2006 16:46:37 +0200 (MEST)
From:	Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de>
To:	Peter Lezoch <pledr@...nline.de>
cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Error binding socket: address already in use


>Hi,
>killing a server task that is operating on a UDP socket( AF_INET, 
>SOCK_DGRAM, IPPROTO_UDP ), leaves the socket in an unclosed state. A 
>subsequently started task, that wants to use the same port, gets from 
>bind above error message.This is, in my opinion, wrong behavior, 

man setsockopt
Look for SO_REUSEADDR
It is all correct behavior.

>because of the connectionless nature of UDP. Only reboot solves this 

Waiting a while should also solve this.

>situation. It looks, as if in net/socket.c, TCP and UDP are handled in 
>the same way without taking into account the different nature of the 
>protocols?!
>How can I overcome this problem ?

Jan Engelhardt
-- 
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/