-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/4355/#review5998
-----------------------------------------------------------


I think the alternative fix is the better one for now (rather than binding to 
multiple IPs but only actually being usable from one). A fair amount of work 
would need to go in to make libprocess work well in  mulit-homed environments. 
I still think we'll want to update our documentation though. I'm guessing that 
Jennifer only has the master on a machine with an "external" IP so that she can 
see the webui, and --ip doesn't actually play a role in which IP is used for 
that (we basically do INADDR_ANY for the webui IP), so we should probably 
mention that in the docs too.


- Benjamin


On 2012-03-14 17:48:10, Charles Reiss wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/4355/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated 2012-03-14 17:48:10)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman and Jessica.
> 
> 
> Summary
> -------
> 
> libprocess currently binds to INADDR_ANY and uses the result of getsockname() 
> as __ip__, overwriting its reading of LIBPROCESS_IP. This patch should use 
> the environment variable setting (when it is not 0 == INADDR_ANY) when it is 
> supplied instead of using getsockname().
> 
> I think this bug is the cause of MESOS-165.
> 
> Note: I assumed that we are intentionally binding to INADDR_ANY regardless of 
> what LIBPROCESS_IP is set to, but this seems to indicate that our 
> documentation on the meaning of the 'ip' option is wrong. An alternate fix 
> would be to change process.cpp:1257 to use __ip__ for s_addr if it's not 0.
> 
> 
> This addresses bug MESOS-165.
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-165
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   third_party/libprocess/src/process.cpp 7433be8 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/4355/diff
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Charles
> 
>

Reply via email to