On 2007-08-31 10:42:37 -0400, Charlie Brady wrote: > > On Fri, 31 Aug 2007, Michael Holzt wrote: > > >>You can't have multiple processes bound to the same > >>local_IP/local_port, > > > >Of course you can. > > > >bind -> listen -> fork > > Yes, brain fart at my end. s/$/ except by inheritance post-fork/. > > If we stop listening post-fork (as qpsmtpd-forkserver does) then this > state only occurs briefly. And since the fork occurs after accept(), then > we already have a TCP four-tuple during that time interval. > > However, there is still an issue with Peter's proposed "zero out remote > address components" proposal - prior to accept(), qpstmpd-forkserver may > have multiple listening sockets. Some of those sockets (e.g. 127.0.0.1:25) > won't be unique across multiple hosts.
127.0.0.1 is a problem even after establishing the connection: With "normal" routing arrangements the remote IP address will be 127.0.0.1, too, so the only variable is the remote port. If you aggregate log messages from several hosts which receive locally generated messages, that can be a problem. -- _ | Peter J. Holzer | I know I'd be respectful of a pirate |_|_) | Sysadmin WSR | with an emu on his shoulder. | | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | __/ | http://www.hjp.at/ | -- Sam in "Freefall"
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
