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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 21:40:43 +0400 From: Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@....mipt.ru> To: Alan Cox <alan@...hat.com> Cc: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: bind and O_NONBLOCK On Sat, Sep 22, 2007 at 01:35:56PM -0400, Alan Cox (alan@...hat.com) wrote: > On Sat, Sep 22, 2007 at 08:14:15PM +0400, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote: > > of operations. There are four ways where bind can fail: > > > > 1. unsufficient rights - nothing can help here > > 2. there is no memory - async binding can not help here too, since it > > some memory just has to be allocated to save async request > > somewhere. > > 3. socket is locked. > > 4. addres is being bound is in use. > > For most protocols yes - but not all. For things like IP specifying O_NDELAY > is meaningless on a bind it will always complete on the spot as you say Yes, of course, bind conflict can be handled in different way as Ulrich noted - from checking bind bucket, to request remote node if address is in use or not. -- Evgeniy Polyakov - 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists