On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 09:00:08PM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote: > On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 11:34:25 -0500 > "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 10:59:25AM +0200, Gil Amsalem wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > I don't know how, but I faced this issue where the *bindsocket* method > > > bounded port 1 for two different threads. > > > Not sure how could it happen. > > > After my change, I got random ports of course, and the problem was solved. > > > > Huh. OK, well I'd like to see how to reproduce the problem and > > understand what was going on. Maybe I'm just missing something obvious > > but I didn't think it should be possible for two bind()s to the same > > port to succeed simultaneously. > > > > It is possible if you set SO_REUSEPORT on the socket. Does pynfs do > that? Might be interesting to strace the program and see if it sets > that option on the socket to confirm... This is just socket.bind() with no special options so it'd be pretty weird if it was doing an SO_REUSEPORT. Not a bad idea to check that with an strace if the problem shows up again, though. Anyway, dropping the patch for now. --b. -- 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
