statd/lockd startup failure

[Rick Macklem]

> On 03/12/2011 02:21, Daniel Braniss wrote:
> > The problem with trying to get the same port for all
> > tcp/udp/inet/inet6
> > though might succeed most of the time, will fail sometimes, then
> > what?
> 
> Can you please describe the scenario when it's completely impossible
> to
> find a port that's open on all 4 families?
> 
> > I saw Doug's commnent, and also the:), it's not as simple as
> > tracking port
> > 80 or 25, needs some efford, but it's deterministic/programable, and
> > worst case
> > you can still use the -p option (which again will fail sometimes:-).
> 
> Given that Rick has already written the patch, I don't think it's at
> all
> unreasonable to put it in as the first choice, perhaps with a fallback
> to picking any available port if there isn't one available for all 4
> families.
> 
I suppose the patch could be changed to switch to "allow any port#"
after N failed attempts at getting the same one. (I'll admit I have
troiuble seeing why getting the same port# would fail "forever" unless
all ports are in use and, if that's the case, you're snookered.)

My only concern with the "same port# patch" is that it is more complex
and, therefore, somewhat riskier w.r.t. my having gotten it wrong.

> Meanwhile, I don't think I'm the only person who has ever had trouble
> trying to track down network traffic from "random" ports that would
> prefer that doing so not be made harder by having the same service on
> the same host using 4 different ports.
>