bin/134694: gives false-positive when unable to obtain socket [WAS: sshd(8) - alert user when fails to execute from rc.d]

[Glen Barber]

Hi, Dimitry

On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 10:46 AM, Dimitry Andric <dimitry at andric.com> wrote:
> On 2009-05-20 16:40, Glen Barber wrote:
>> sshd was listening on :25, both IPv4 and IPv6
>> sendmail was listening on :25 (because I had forgotten to disable it)
>>
>> The system boots, and sendmail starts before sshd.  When sshd starts
>> (or tries to) there is no console output that it had failed.  The only
>> way you realize it is not running, is when you cannot remotely log in.
>
> Yes, this is unfortunate, but normal, as I explained in an earlier post.
>
> The sshd process does not return any error (and thus the /etc/rc.d
> script doesn't either), because it has no way to know that its forked
> copy died.
>
> The solution to this PR is "don't run stuff on conflicting ports". :)
>

I absolutely agree about not running sshd on conflicting ports.  After
a bit more testing, I found that "most" other services will complain
when they cannot obtain the requested socket, and you will see a
failure notice via the rc.d script.

My concern is when someone has a "definite need" to run sshd on a
non-standard port less than, say 1024 for example.  This is the real
reason I initially created the PR and posted to hackers@ about this --
I'd like to fix it.  But, I want to fix it the right way, and not hack
a crude solution.

Regards,

-- 
Glen Barber