Hi Varun, According to the forum post, the reason the socket removal code was commented out in the first place was that, prior to this call, the slp.reg file had been processed, which, for IPv6, created multicast sockets for each of the static registrations. They were then deleted by this code.
Do you have any static registrations in your slp.reg file ? If not, then you won't have seen this problem. My original concern regarding running the code as a result of SIGHUP was theoretical, in that I hadn't had the time to investigate it myself. Searching the latest trunk code for calls to SLPDIncomingInit, I can only find one call in slpd_main.c and one in slpd_win32.c. The call in slpd_main.c is only made once, on startup, so there would be no detrimental effect in commenting out the socket removal code in this case, as the socket list is statically initialised to empty. The call in slpd_win32.c is made from the ServiceStart() function, and, although I don't know that much about Windows services, it looks like the sockets will be removed after a ServiceStop call, so there should be no need to clean up the list on the next ServiceStart call, even if sockets were persistent between ServiceStop and ServiceStart calls. In other words, it now looks to me that we should apply the patch as it stands (given that you have been testing with both IPv4 and IPv6 enabled with no problems), including commenting out the socket removal code. Did your investigations find anything that invalidates my analysis above ? Regards, Richard NB. I have copied this to the openslp-devel mailing list in case anyone there has any comments or insights. -----Original Message----- From: Varun Chandramohan [mailto:var...@linux.vnet.ibm.com] Sent: 06 July 2010 10:08 To: Morrell Richard (external) Subject: Re: Add IPv6 Fix Support! Hi Morrell, I was busy fixing some major ipv6 issues for openslp that i could not look at this for sometime. Iam sorry. As far the first question is concerned you are right, it must not be commented. I will fix that. Iam not sure what the intention was, but i have been running with both ipv4 and ipv6 for about 4 months now. I have run slpd as SA and never faced an issue. As DA i ran for a while, but not very extensively tested. From my code reading, it seems that code can handle both ipv4 and ipv6 simultaneously. I have tons of fixes that i need to submit, but for that this patch has to go in. As i have already told you iam not allowed to modify this patch due to company rules, i will have a patch made on top of latest svn with the comment change. That patch you can apply or change it yourself. Is that ok with you? Regards, Varun On Thursday, June 03, 2010 12:37:58 pm you wrote: > Sorry, Varun, I've been a bit busy recently. > > The patch looks relatively straightforward in itself, but I have some > concerns. > > Regarding the commenting out of the removal of sockets, the code is run at > initialisation, in which case it would seem to be completely redundant, as > the structure it is apparently clearing is statically initialised to empty > anyway. If the code could be run at some time other than initialisation, > however, eg. after a SIGHUP to re-interpret the configuration files, then we > may not clear down sockets that we should be clearing down. How sure are > you that the code is not run at other than first initialisation ? > > Secondly, the patch makes it so that IPv4 and IPv6 operation can be enabled > independently, whereas the original behaviour was to have one or the other. > There may be assumptions in the code that rely on this eg. interpreting the > format of IP addresses depending on whether IPv4 is enabled. How much > testing have you done to make sure that IPv4 operation is not affected when > IPv6 operation is enabled ? > > -----Original Message----- > From: Varun Chandramohan [mailto:var...@linux.vnet.ibm.com] > Sent: 02 June 2010 07:05 > To: Morrell Richard (external) > Subject: Re: Add IPv6 Fix Support! > > > Hi, > > Any update on this? Did you get a chance to look? > > On Wednesday, May 19, 2010 08:53:53 pm you wrote: > > Hi Varun, > > > > I'm not that familiar with the IPv6 support, but I'll take a look at the > > patch. > > > > Regards, > > Richard > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Varun Chandramohan [mailto:var...@linux.vnet.ibm.com] > > Sent: 19 May 2010 06:27 > > To: Morrell Richard (external) > > Cc: openslp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > > Subject: Add IPv6 Fix Support! > > > > > > Hi Morrell, > > > > I have extensively tested the ipv6 fixes submitted long > > time > > ago. I found them to be working fine except a few bugs. For those bugs i > > already have bug fixes submitted. The patch iam talking about is > > > https://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=487B7A7B.7070308%4 > > 0TrustedCS.com&forum_name=openslp- > > devel > > > > As part of my company policy iam not allowed to commit patches that are > not > > mine. If its possible can you review the patch and commit patch? If done i > > can > > work on further fixes. Let me know if this can be worked out? > > > > Regards, > > Varun > > > > This email, including any attachment, is a confidential communication > > intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is > > addressed. It contains information which is private and may be proprietary > > or covered by legal professional privilege. If you have received this > email > > in error, please notify the sender upon receipt, and immediately delete it > > from your system. > > > > Anything contained in this email that is not connected with the businesses > > of this company is neither endorsed by nor is the liability of this > company. > > > > Whilst we have taken reasonable precautions to ensure that any attachment > to > > this email has been swept for viruses, we cannot accept liability for any > > damage sustained as a result of software viruses, and would advise that > you > > carry out your own virus checks before opening any attachment. > > > > > > This email, including any attachment, is a confidential communication > intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is > addressed. It contains information which is private and may be proprietary > or covered by legal professional privilege. If you have received this email > in error, please notify the sender upon receipt, and immediately delete it > from your system. > > Anything contained in this email that is not connected with the businesses > of this company is neither endorsed by nor is the liability of this company. > > Whilst we have taken reasonable precautions to ensure that any attachment to > this email has been swept for viruses, we cannot accept liability for any > damage sustained as a result of software viruses, and would advise that you > carry out your own virus checks before opening any attachment. > > This email, including any attachment, is a confidential communication intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. It contains information which is private and may be proprietary or covered by legal professional privilege. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender upon receipt, and immediately delete it from your system. Anything contained in this email that is not connected with the businesses of this company is neither endorsed by nor is the liability of this company. Whilst we have taken reasonable precautions to ensure that any attachment to this email has been swept for viruses, we cannot accept liability for any damage sustained as a result of software viruses, and would advise that you carry out your own virus checks before opening any attachment. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net email is sponsored by Sprint What will you do first with EVO, the first 4G phone? Visit sprint.com/first -- http://p.sf.net/sfu/sprint-com-first _______________________________________________ Openslp-devel mailing list Openslp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openslp-devel
