Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 00:14:59 +0800 From: Julian Elischer <julian@freebsd.org> To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ermal_Lu=E7i?= <eri@freebsd.org>, freebsd-net <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>, "freebsd-current@freebsd.org" <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] SO_REUSEADDR and SO_REUSEPORT behaviour Message-ID: <5298BD83.2090601@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <CAPBZQG29BEJJ8BK=gn%2Bg_n5o7JSnPbsKQ-=3=6AkFOxzt%2B=wGQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAPBZQG29BEJJ8BK=gn%2Bg_n5o7JSnPbsKQ-=3=6AkFOxzt%2B=wGQ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 11/29/13, 8:04 PM, Ermal Luçi wrote: > Hello, > > since SO_REUSEADDR and SO_REUSEPORT are supposed to allow two daemons to > share the same port and possibly listening ip, you would expect if you bind > two daemon with such options to same port to see the same traffic on both! this is not how I interpret it.. I presume it is is to allow two OUTGOING sessions from the same source. > > This is not the case today. > Only multicast sockets seem to have the behaviour of broadcasting the data > to all sockets sharing the same properties through these options! > > The patch at [1] implements/corrects the behaviour for UDP sockets. > Is there anything to be corrected in that patch? > Why it has not been provided there before? > Can it be committed to the tree? > Any extra security checks for jails needed there? > > > [1] > https://github.com/pfsense/pfsense-tools/blob/master/patches/RELENG_10_0/udp_SO_REUSEADDR%2BPORT.diff >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5298BD83.2090601>