Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-apps-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-apps-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-apps-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#faqs>
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 23:06:25 +0100
From: Corinna Vinschen <vinschen AT redhat DOT com>
To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Fixing openssh to avoid occasional spurious connection failures
Message-ID: <20011115230625.D27452@cygbert.vinschen.de>
Reply-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
References: <20011115213959 DOT 6226 DOT qmail AT lizard DOT curl DOT com> <052f01c16e1f$ffb61890$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks> <20011115215733 DOT 6471 DOT qmail AT lizard DOT curl DOT com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
In-Reply-To: <20011115215733.6471.qmail@lizard.curl.com>; from jik@curl.com on Thu, Nov 15, 2001 at 04:57:33PM -0500

On Thu, Nov 15, 2001 at 04:57:33PM -0500, Jonathan Kamens wrote:
> >  From: "Robert Collins" <robert DOT collins AT itdomain DOT com DOT au>
> >  Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 08:51:47 +1100
> >  
> >  And what about patching cygwin! to automatically retry on EADDRINUSE -
> >  if we can detect that the winsock bug is the culprit? That would fix
> >  ssh, squid, telnet, ftp....
> 
> As I noted in my message to cygwin-developers, I think this is too
> hard to patch inside Cygwin.  The problem is that once the failure
> occurs, the socket is bound to a particular local port and can't be
> rebound to another port, so the socket with the failure is toast.
> This means that you'd have to burn down the socket and reconstruct a
> new one to retry the failed connection, without the caller ever
> noticing.  I don't think it's practical to try to do that.

Don't think so.  I think we could find a workaround by assigning
local socket numbers in another range (>32768 or so).

Anyway, why of all numbers "4"???

Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Developer                                mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat, Inc.