Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 15:42:17 -0400 From: Christopher Sean Hilton <chris@vindaloo.com> To: Brooks Davis <brooks@one-eyed-alien.net> Cc: FreeBSD stable <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>, re@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Ensuring inetd is started before any RPC services Message-ID: <1161805337.1718.4.camel@dagobah.vindaloo.com> In-Reply-To: <20061017151911.GC68977@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> References: <20061017082319.I27675@ramstind.fig.ol.no> <20061017143947.GA68977@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> <20061017171137.W27675@ramstind.fig.ol.no> <20061017151911.GC68977@lor.one-eyed-alien.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 2006-10-17 at 10:19 -0500, Brooks Davis wrote: > On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 05:14:22PM +0200, Trond Endrest?l wrote: > > On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 09:39-0500, Brooks Davis wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 08:46:49AM +0200, Trond Endrest?l wrote: > > > > I have on many occasions run into the situation where the RPC based > > > > services have occupied the well-known ports for other non-RPC based > > > > services. Last week rpc.lockd on one of my systems got hold of TCP > > > > port 995, leaving inetd unable to start any pop3s services. > > > > This seemed familiar to me so I looked through the PRs that I filed and found: bin/94920. In my case the problem was rpc.statd stealing port 63 before cups could start. This was annoying both to nfs clients who didn't realize that statd was forceably moved and to anyone who wanted to print. I'm sure that this can't get into 6.2 RELEASE but I wonder if there needs to be some way to tell rpc services to avoid certain tcp ports during initialization. -- Chris
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1161805337.1718.4.camel>