On Sep 17, 2010, at 6:22 PM, Jan RÄkorajski wrote: > On Fri, 17 Sep 2010, Chuck Lever wrote: > >> On Sep 17, 2010, at 3:04 PM, Jan RÄkorajski wrote: >> >>> On Fri, 17 Sep 2010, Chuck Lever wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On Sep 17, 2010, at 2:12 PM, Jan RÄkorajski wrote: [ ... snipped ... ] > >>> And, besides, behavior for UDP and TCP sockets is currently inconsistent >>> as init_transport ignores any failed UDP bind and correctly >>> returns error for TCP. >> >> That _may_ be intentional. UDP semantics are "unreliable," so an >> error may be expected even at bind time. Who knows, it doesn't look >> very well documented. > > What about TCP then? My patch was a by-product of trying to make '-h <IP>' > also work for tcp sockets, so if we skip unbindable addresses for UDP, > then will it be ok to do the same for TCP? Interesting. Now that I've actually looked at the documentation >> blush << rpcbind(8) explicitly says that "-h" is only for UDP. I seem to recall that the legacy portmapper had a problem on multi-homed hosts where a request was received on one interface, and the reply was sent out another. This is certainly a problem for datagram transports, but shouldn't be an issue for connection-oriented transports: the reply is always sent on the same connection as the request was received. Can you say a little more about why do you need "-h" to work for connection-oriented sockets? -- chuck[dot]lever[at]oracle[dot]com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
