You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Joe Orton <jo...@redhat.com> on 2017/04/10 12:20:38 UTC
Re: listener buckets regressions
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 05:47:53PM +0200, Yann Ylavic wrote:
> Is the failure really expected w/o listener buckets?
> It happens on bind ("Address already in use: AH00072: make_sock"),
> which is indeed not an issue with SO_REUSEPORT.
>
> I want to fix the leak of course but I wonder if we should:
> 1. ignore duplicated Listen directives for the ListenCoresBucketsRatio
> > 0 case only,
> 2. ignore duplicated Listen directives in any case,
> 3. fail in any case.
I like your r1789220 because it makes a startup time failure a config
time failure, which is good... but things like:
Listen localhost:8025
Listen 127.0.0.1:8025
do not appear to get caught by that test. I wonder if accurately
duplicating the bind() conflict detection is going to feasible/sensible,
and maybe we should still warn in the docs that SO_REUSEPORT is special
here.
Regards, Joe
Re: listener buckets regressions
Posted by Yann Ylavic <yl...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 2:20 PM, Joe Orton <jo...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 05:47:53PM +0200, Yann Ylavic wrote:
>> Is the failure really expected w/o listener buckets?
>> It happens on bind ("Address already in use: AH00072: make_sock"),
>> which is indeed not an issue with SO_REUSEPORT.
>>
>> I want to fix the leak of course but I wonder if we should:
>> 1. ignore duplicated Listen directives for the ListenCoresBucketsRatio
>> > 0 case only,
>> 2. ignore duplicated Listen directives in any case,
>> 3. fail in any case.
>
> I like your r1789220 because it makes a startup time failure a config
> time failure, which is good... but things like:
>
> Listen localhost:8025
> Listen 127.0.0.1:8025
>
> do not appear to get caught by that test. I wonder if accurately
> duplicating the bind() conflict detection is going to feasible/sensible,
> and maybe we should still warn in the docs that SO_REUSEPORT is special
> here.
I've just committed something in r1792675 (and proposed for backport
with r1789220), does it sound appropriate?
Regards,
Yann.