From owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed May 20 17:40:04 2009
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@hub.freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8BED1065675
	for <freebsd-bugs@hub.freebsd.org>;
	Wed, 20 May 2009 17:40:04 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org
	[IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::28])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A48DC8FC1E
	for <freebsd-bugs@hub.freebsd.org>;
	Wed, 20 May 2009 17:40:04 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (gnats@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n4KHe49W090867
	for <freebsd-bugs@freefall.freebsd.org>; Wed, 20 May 2009 17:40:04 GMT
	(envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org)
Received: (from gnats@localhost)
	by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id n4KHe4bO090866;
	Wed, 20 May 2009 17:40:04 GMT (envelope-from gnats)
Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 17:40:04 GMT
Message-Id: <200905201740.n4KHe4bO090866@freefall.freebsd.org>
To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org
From: Glen Barber <glen.j.barber@gmail.com>
Cc: 
Subject: Re: bin/134694: gives false-positive when unable to obtain socket 
	[WAS: sshd(8) - alert user when fails to execute from rc.d]
X-BeenThere: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Glen Barber <glen.j.barber@gmail.com>
List-Id: Bug reports <freebsd-bugs.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-bugs>,
	<mailto:freebsd-bugs-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-bugs>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-bugs-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-bugs>,
	<mailto:freebsd-bugs-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 17:40:05 -0000

The following reply was made to PR bin/134694; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Glen Barber <glen.j.barber@gmail.com>
To: Dimitry Andric <dimitry@andric.com>
Cc: hackers@freebsd.org, bug-followup@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: bin/134694: gives false-positive when unable to obtain socket 
	[WAS: sshd(8) - alert user when fails to execute from rc.d]
Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 13:39:28 -0400

 Hi, Dimitry
 
 On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 10:46 AM, Dimitry Andric <dimitry@andric.com> wrote=
 :
 > On 2009-05-20 16:40, Glen Barber wrote:
 >> sshd was listening on :25, both IPv4 and IPv6
 >> sendmail was listening on :25 (because I had forgotten to disable it)
 >>
 >> The system boots, and sendmail starts before sshd. =A0When sshd starts
 >> (or tries to) there is no console output that it had failed. =A0The only
 >> way you realize it is not running, is when you cannot remotely log in.
 >
 > Yes, this is unfortunate, but normal, as I explained in an earlier post.
 >
 > The sshd process does not return any error (and thus the /etc/rc.d
 > script doesn't either), because it has no way to know that its forked
 > copy died.
 >
 > The solution to this PR is "don't run stuff on conflicting ports". :)
 >
 
 I absolutely agree about not running sshd on conflicting ports.  After
 a bit more testing, I found that "most" other services will complain
 when they cannot obtain the requested socket, and you will see a
 failure notice via the rc.d script.
 
 My concern is when someone has a "definite need" to run sshd on a
 non-standard port less than, say 1024 for example.  This is the real
 reason I initially created the PR and posted to hackers@ about this --
 I'd like to fix it.  But, I want to fix it the right way, and not hack
 a crude solution.
 
 Regards,
 
 --=20
 Glen Barber