[privoxy-devel] [ ijbswa-Patches-3354485 ] Multiple listen-address implementation

[SourceForge.net <no...@so...>]

Patches item #3354485, was opened at 2011-07-05 18:36
Message generated for change (Comment added) made by petrp
You can respond by visiting: 
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=311118&aid=3354485&group_id=11118

Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread,
including the initial issue submission, for this request,
not just the latest update.
Category: new feature
Group: None
Status: Open
Resolution: None
Priority: 5
Private: No
Submitted By: Petr Písař (petrp)
Assigned to: Fabian Keil (fabiankeil)
Summary: Multiple listen-address implementation

Initial Comment:
Hello,

I found some operating systems does not allow to accept IPv4 client on IPv6 sockets or some system are configured in such manner (like GNU/Debian). Also I think it can be helpful to bind Privoxy to certain addresses only or to more ports.

There is similar item #71 on TODO list. My implementation forces to bind to all listed addresses. However it could be possible to adjust it.

I performed only few tests so there can be some bugs.

I will attach series of 5 patches against latest CVS tree.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

>Comment By: Petr Písař (petrp)
Date: 2011-07-13 19:53

Message:
Ok, patch 0007-Drop-need_bind-flag-once-any-socket-binds.patch fixes the
typo in condition in bind_ports_helper(), patch
0008-Log-listening-on-socket-after-binding.patch moves the `Listening on
port...' log message after actual binding as you pointed in last post.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Fabian Keil (fabiankeil)
Date: 2011-07-12 18:47

Message:
Trying once per address seems to be enough to me.

I don't consider it a problem to treat bind failures as fatal issues.
Until TODO list items #22 and #23 are implemented I'd actually consider it
the best option.

The problem I see with #2 is that if bind_port_helper() wouldn't die and
if the user specified an address twice (or just used an incorrect one)
Privoxy would waste a lot of time trying to bind to it again and again.

While we could limit the attempts, I think that would be more magic than
necessary and it also wouldn't be consistent with the behavior in case of
other configuration issues.

Looking at bind_port_helper() some more, I also think it shouldn't log the
"Listening on ..." messages unless binding to the address actually worked.
I'm aware that it already does that without your patch, though.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Petr Písař (petrp)
Date: 2011-07-11 18:01

Message:
You are right. Current code does not make sense. Correct fix depends on
semantics you want to give to bind_ports_helper():

(1) If you want to drop not-bound sockets and survive with successfully
opened ones, your suggestion is correct.

(2) If you want to leave possibility to re-bound on next loop cycle, one
should pre-set config->need_bind to 0, keep the condition and change
conditional assignment to setting 1.

The only drawback is current bind_port_helper(), that's called from
bind_ports_helper(), dies on any error, thus resolving given problem is
just an academic question.

I think choosing solution (2) opens way for implementing TODO item #71
more comprehensively. So I vote for it. Actually current implementation
dies on reloading wrong configuration which I don't like. I think the
daemon, once started, should keep running as long as possible.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Fabian Keil (fabiankeil)
Date: 2011-07-10 10:07

Message:
I think there may be a logical error in bind_ports_helper().

+         if (JB_INVALID_SOCKET == sockets[i])
+         {
+            config->need_bind = 0;
+         }

Shouldn't the condition be JB_INVALID_SOCKET != sockets[i]  here?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Fabian Keil (fabiankeil)
Date: 2011-07-06 17:53

Message:
Thanks a lot for the patches.

I'll have a closer look at them this weekend.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

You can respond by visiting: 
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=311118&aid=3354485&group_id=11118