On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 06:15:43AM +0200, Marc Lehmann wrote: > When doing lots of connections in "quick" succession (say, one per > second), then, after a while, connections fails with: > > poll: protocol failure in circuit setup > > This is not due to the inetd rate limit (which I changed to 1000/minute > for the shell service). > > Replacing rsh-redone-server by rsh-server fixes this problem completely.
I'll have a look at the difference between rsh-server and
rsh-redone-server. I guess it is because rsh-redone-server lets some
sockets linger longer than rsh-server...
> Sometimes I get this message in the syslog:
>
> Oct 6 06:02:47 (none) in.rshd: Connection from cerebro on illegal port 0.
This is about the primary connection, not the stderr connection.
> Sometime this:
>
> Oct 6 06:02:43 (none) in.rshd: Error while receiving stderr port number from
> cerebro: Success
That can only be if read() returns 0, which means the other end closed
the connection. I should indeed change the error message.
> Sometimes none except the normal in.rsh connection from and pam messages.
>
> Incidentaly, port 0 is a valid stderr port number in the protocol, so this
> should be supported.
It accepts port 0 as a stderr port without errors, but will not set up a
socket in that case.
> I will likely not be able to test this further, as the other
> incompatibilities of rsh-redone finally forced me to uninstall it
> everywhere, but the above should makme it possible at least to fix the
> stderr-port-is-0 bug.
Thanks for the bugreport. By the way, how many rsh connections per
second do you get? And if you run netstat, do you see sockets in
TIME_WAIT (or other _WAIT) states?
--
Met vriendelijke groet / with kind regards,
Guus Sliepen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
