* Re: SO_REUSEADDR not allowing server and client to use same port
[not found] <47C6FA2A.5030302@alcatel-lucent.com>
@ 2008-02-28 20:36 ` Willy Tarreau
2008-02-28 20:44 ` Nebojsa Miljanovic
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Willy Tarreau @ 2008-02-28 20:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Nebojsa Miljanovic
Cc: linux-kernel, Kittlitz, Edward (Ned), asweeney,
Polhemus, William (Bart), netdev
[cc'd netdev]
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 12:15:06PM -0600, Nebojsa Miljanovic wrote:
> Hello all,
> I have seen similar complaints about this issue before in the list archive, but
> I have not seen any resolution. So, I am posting the question again in hope of
> getting some replies.
>
> Currently, Linux does not allow reuse of same local port for both TCP server and
> TCP client. I understand that there may be a need to prevent two servers from
> binding to the same local port, but having 1 server and 1 outgoing client use it
> should be allowed. Other Unix like operating systems do allow it.
I've been encountering the need for SO_REUSEPORT as implemented on some BSD
for instance. It allows any process to explicitly permit another one to bind
to the same IP:port provided that it also sets its socket with SO_REUSEPORT.
This is a real requirement when you need to restart a service without any
service disruption.
In the end, I've written a trivial patch for 2.4 (but most likely 2.6 would
use nearly the same one). I noticed that the conflict detection logic already
distinguished between 3 cases: sk->reuse==0, sk->reuse==1, sk->reuse >1.
sk->reuse was set to 1 with SO_REUSEADDR. I simply had to make SO_REUSEPORT
do sk->reuse |= 2 to get everything working as expected.
I don't know yet if it is as easy to do in 2.6, but if there is a possible
acceptance of including this useful feature into mainline, I can try to
work a patch (possibly cleaner than my existing one for 2.4).
Regards,
Willy
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread* Re: SO_REUSEADDR not allowing server and client to use same port
2008-02-28 20:36 ` SO_REUSEADDR not allowing server and client to use same port Willy Tarreau
@ 2008-02-28 20:44 ` Nebojsa Miljanovic
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Nebojsa Miljanovic @ 2008-02-28 20:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Willy Tarreau
Cc: linux-kernel, Kittlitz, Edward (Ned), asweeney,
Polhemus, William (Bart), netdev
Willy,
I agree. That would also work nicely. I do wish SO_REUSEPORT was available.
But, I am amazed that this issue has a long history (I've seen posts from 1999)
and that there was no progress with it.
Thanks,
Neb
On 2/28/2008 2:36 PM, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> [cc'd netdev]
>
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 12:15:06PM -0600, Nebojsa Miljanovic wrote:
>
>>Hello all,
>>I have seen similar complaints about this issue before in the list archive, but
>>I have not seen any resolution. So, I am posting the question again in hope of
>>getting some replies.
>>
>>Currently, Linux does not allow reuse of same local port for both TCP server and
>>TCP client. I understand that there may be a need to prevent two servers from
>>binding to the same local port, but having 1 server and 1 outgoing client use it
>>should be allowed. Other Unix like operating systems do allow it.
>
>
> I've been encountering the need for SO_REUSEPORT as implemented on some BSD
> for instance. It allows any process to explicitly permit another one to bind
> to the same IP:port provided that it also sets its socket with SO_REUSEPORT.
> This is a real requirement when you need to restart a service without any
> service disruption.
>
> In the end, I've written a trivial patch for 2.4 (but most likely 2.6 would
> use nearly the same one). I noticed that the conflict detection logic already
> distinguished between 3 cases: sk->reuse==0, sk->reuse==1, sk->reuse >1.
> sk->reuse was set to 1 with SO_REUSEADDR. I simply had to make SO_REUSEPORT
> do sk->reuse |= 2 to get everything working as expected.
>
> I don't know yet if it is as easy to do in 2.6, but if there is a possible
> acceptance of including this useful feature into mainline, I can try to
> work a patch (possibly cleaner than my existing one for 2.4).
>
> Regards,
> Willy
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* SO_REUSEADDR not allowing server and client to use same port
@ 2008-02-28 19:00 Nebojsa Miljanovic
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Nebojsa Miljanovic @ 2008-02-28 19:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: netdev
Cc: Kittlitz, Edward (Ned), Sweeney, Andrew (Andrew),
Polhemus, William (Bart)
Hello all,
I have seen similar complaints about this issue before in the list archive, but
I have not seen any resolution. So, I am posting the question again in hope of
getting some replies.
Currently, Linux does not allow reuse of same local port for both TCP server and
TCP client. I understand that there may be a need to prevent two servers from
binding to the same local port, but having 1 server and 1 outgoing client use it
should be allowed. Other Unix like operating systems do allow it. Further more,
Linux SCTP socket API allows for this to happen. And, I can't imagine why this
restriction would exists for TCP and not for SCTP.
This issue is caused by tcp_v4_get_port() function (same check is in IPV6
version of this function). It does does not allow for "tb->fastreuse" bit to be
set when passed socket is in listening state. Suggested code change below would
allow for port reuse by a single listening socket and multiple client sockets.
[neb@mvista ipv4]$ cvs diff -u20 -p -w -b tcp_ipv4.c
Index: tcp_ipv4.c
===================================================================
RCS file:
/cvs/cvsroot/Repository/TelicaRoot/components/mvlinux/cge/devkit/lsp/7xx/linux/net/ipv4/tcp_ipv4.c,v
retrieving revision 1.1.1.2
diff -u -2 -0 -p -w -b -r1.1.1.2 tcp_ipv4.c
--- tcp_ipv4.c 27 Apr 2007 12:34:39 -0000 1.1.1.2
+++ tcp_ipv4.c 28 Feb 2008 18:10:16 -0000
@@ -258,46 +258,54 @@ static int tcp_v4_get_port(struct sock *
tb = NULL;
goto tb_not_found;
tb_found:
if (!hlist_empty(&tb->owners)) {
if (sk->sk_reuse > 1)
goto success;
if (tb->fastreuse > 0 &&
sk->sk_reuse && sk->sk_state != TCP_LISTEN) {
goto success;
} else {
ret = 1;
if (tcp_bind_conflict(sk, tb))
goto fail_unlock;
}
}
tb_not_found:
ret = 1;
if (!tb && (tb = tcp_bucket_create(head, snum)) == NULL)
goto fail_unlock;
if (hlist_empty(&tb->owners)) {
+#if 1 /* Do not check for TCP_LISTEN state */
+ if (sk->sk_reuse)
+#else
if (sk->sk_reuse && sk->sk_state != TCP_LISTEN)
+#endif
tb->fastreuse = 1;
else
tb->fastreuse = 0;
} else if (tb->fastreuse &&
+#if 1 /* Do not check for TCP_LISTEN state */
+ (!sk->sk_reuse))
+#else
(!sk->sk_reuse || sk->sk_state == TCP_LISTEN))
+#endif
tb->fastreuse = 0;
success:
if (!tcp_sk(sk)->bind_hash)
tcp_bind_hash(sk, tb, snum);
BUG_TRAP(tcp_sk(sk)->bind_hash == tb);
ret = 0;
fail_unlock:
spin_unlock(&head->lock);
fail:
local_bh_enable();
return ret;
}
Thanks,
Neb Miljanovic
Alcatel-Lucent
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2008-02-28 20:44 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <47C6FA2A.5030302@alcatel-lucent.com>
2008-02-28 20:36 ` SO_REUSEADDR not allowing server and client to use same port Willy Tarreau
2008-02-28 20:44 ` Nebojsa Miljanovic
2008-02-28 19:00 Nebojsa Miljanovic
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).