[issue419873] ThreadingTCPServer invalidating sockets

Change by admin : -- github: None -> 34432 ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe:

[issue29406] asyncio SSL contexts leak sockets after calling close with certain Apache servers

Change by Andrew Svetlov : -- resolution: -> fixed stage: patch review -> resolved status: open -> closed versions: +Python 3.11 -Python 3.6, Python 3.7, Python 3.8 ___ Python tracker

[issue25230] asyncio/Windows: Unix datagram sockets not supported

Andrew Svetlov added the comment: Implemented a long time ago, closing -- nosy: +asvetlov resolution: -> out of date stage: -> resolved status: open -> closed ___ Python tracker

[issue29406] asyncio SSL contexts leak sockets after calling close with certain Apache servers

Change by STINNER Victor : -- nosy: -vstinner ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe:

[issue29406] asyncio SSL contexts leak sockets after calling close with certain Apache servers

Kumar Aditya added the comment: Since bpo-issue44011 is fixed, this can be closed now @asvetlov. -- nosy: +kumaraditya303 ___ Python tracker ___

[issue27022] expose sendmmsg() syscall in sockets API

honglei jiang added the comment: any plan for it? -- nosy: +honglei.jiang versions: +Python 3.11 -Python 3.6 ___ Python tracker ___

[issue46089] Problems with AF_PACKET sockets

Ethan Furman added the comment: To contribute you'll need to sign a Contributor's License Agreement [1]. After that, anything you can do to help will move this forward. You may not be aware, but Python is developed primarily by volunteers, which unfortunately means that time is normally

[issue46089] Problems with AF_PACKET sockets

G. Allard added the comment: Next 3 steps must be (in decreasing priorities): - fix the code - write a mini-howto. It will be used for test purposes - write documentation (a Howto/tutorial) For the 3rd step, I would accept to join a team. -- ___

[issue46089] Problems with AF_PACKET sockets

Ethan Furman added the comment: Thank you for the thorough report. Do you feel comfortable writing that missing documentation? -- nosy: +ethan.furman ___ Python tracker ___

[issue46089] Problems with AF_PACKET sockets

findex = 2; /* index of 'eth0' */ addr.sll_protocol = htons( ETH_P_ALL); - bind( sock, (struct sockaddr*) , sizeof( addr)); I'm not an expert in C programming but it worked on first try. First problem is that AF_PACKET sockets are broken in Python. Second problem is inadequate documentation.

[issue45351] asyncio doc: List all sockets in TCP echo server using streams

STINNER Victor added the comment: Thanks Olaf van der Spek, I merged your PR and backported it to 3.9 and 3.10 branches. -- resolution: -> fixed stage: patch review -> resolved status: open -> closed versions: +Python 3.10, Python 3.9 ___ Python

[issue45351] asyncio doc: List all sockets in TCP echo server using streams

miss-islington added the comment: New changeset 320084fe7de90319928d8f3e597d5bca04db13f3 by Miss Islington (bot) in branch '3.9': bpo-45351, asyncio: Enhance echo server example, print all addresses (GH-28828) https://github.com/python/cpython/commit/320084fe7de90319928d8f3e597d5bca04db13f3

[issue45351] asyncio doc: List all sockets in TCP echo server using streams

miss-islington added the comment: New changeset bb4f885892be0c337db3a81ef2936be0b3855de3 by Miss Islington (bot) in branch '3.10': bpo-45351, asyncio: Enhance echo server example, print all addresses (GH-28828) https://github.com/python/cpython/commit/bb4f885892be0c337db3a81ef2936be0b3855de3

[issue45351] asyncio doc: List all sockets in TCP echo server using streams

Change by miss-islington : -- nosy: +miss-islington nosy_count: 5.0 -> 6.0 pull_requests: +27174 pull_request: https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/28879 ___ Python tracker

[issue45351] asyncio doc: List all sockets in TCP echo server using streams

Change by miss-islington : -- pull_requests: +27175 pull_request: https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/28880 ___ Python tracker ___

[issue45351] asyncio doc: List all sockets in TCP echo server using streams

STINNER Victor added the comment: New changeset 659812b451aefe1f0e5f83540296519a5fb8f313 by Olaf van der Spek in branch 'main': bpo-45351, asyncio: Enhance echo server example, print all addresses (GH-28828) https://github.com/python/cpython/commit/659812b451aefe1f0e5f83540296519a5fb8f313

[issue45351] asyncio doc: List all sockets in TCP echo server using streams

Change by Roundup Robot : -- keywords: +patch nosy: +python-dev nosy_count: 4.0 -> 5.0 pull_requests: +27144 stage: -> patch review pull_request: https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/28828 ___ Python tracker

[issue45351] asyncio doc: List all sockets in TCP echo server using streams

the example? -- nosy: +vstinner title: List all sockets in TCP echo server using streams -> asyncio doc: List all sockets in TCP echo server using streams versions: +Python 3.11 ___ Python tracker <https://bugs.python.org/issu

[issue45351] List all sockets in TCP echo server using streams

Olaf van der Spek added the comment: > server = await asyncio.start_server(handle_echo, '127.0.0.1', ) If 127.0.0.1 is replaced by localhost, the server might listen on ::1 and 127.0.0.1 but only one address will be printed, which is confusing (and wrong IMO). So the output of the

[issue45351] List all sockets in TCP echo server using streams

Eric V. Smith added the comment: I'm not clear why you're suggesting this change. Is this additional functionality, or is the current example broken? Is the text wrong, or just the code? -- nosy: +eric.smith ___ Python tracker

[issue45351] List all sockets in TCP echo server using streams

@python components: Documentation messages: 403084 nosy: docs@python, olafvdspek priority: normal severity: normal status: open title: List all sockets in TCP echo server using streams ___ Python tracker <https://bugs.python.org/issue45

[issue17913] stat.filemode returns "-" for sockets and unknown types

Christian Heimes added the comment: Thanks for the ping. The issue has been fixed a long time ago. -- resolution: -> fixed stage: patch review -> resolved status: open -> closed ___ Python tracker

[issue17913] stat.filemode returns "-" for sockets and unknown types

Irit Katriel added the comment: I think this is fixed now >>> s = os.stat('/var/run/vpncontrol.sock') >>> stat.filemode(s.st_mode) 'srw---' iritkatriel@Irits-MBP cpython % ls -l /var/run/vpncontrol.sock srw--- 1 root daemon 0 19 Aug 11:15 /var/run/vpncontrol.sock --

[issue43183] Asyncio can't close sockets properly on Linux cause CLOSE_WAIT

Nathan Collins added the comment: I created a new issue for my bug here: https://bugs.python.org/issue44805 -- ___ Python tracker ___

[issue43183] Asyncio can't close sockets properly on Linux cause CLOSE_WAIT

Nathan Collins added the comment: What was the resolution for this issue? I'm experiencing asyncio.StreamReader.readline() hanging forever on a socket in CLOSE_WAIT state. -- nosy: +NathanCollins ___ Python tracker

[issue22018] signal.set_wakeup_fd() should accept sockets on Windows

Change by Larry Hastings : -- nosy: -larry ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe:

[issue22018] signal.set_wakeup_fd() should accept sockets on Windows

Change by STINNER Victor : -- title: ខ្មែរសប់លក់ទំនិញ -> signal.set_wakeup_fd() should accept sockets on Windows ___ Python tracker <https://bugs.python.org/issu

[issue22018] signal.set_wakeup_fd() should accept sockets on Windows

Change by HAK CG Gang : -- nosy: +habrecord22 ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe:

[issue25957] sockaddr_l2 lacks CID, address type (AF_BLUETOOTH sockets)

Change by Steve Dower : -- nosy: -steve.dower ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe:

[issue25957] sockaddr_l2 lacks CID, address type (AF_BLUETOOTH sockets)

Change by Irit Katriel : -- nosy: +steve.dower ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe:

[issue37228] UDP sockets created by create_datagram_endpoint() allow by default multiple processes to bind the same port

Kyle Stanley added the comment: > Thanks, Ned <3 (For following up and closing the issue) -- ___ Python tracker ___ ___

[issue37228] UDP sockets created by create_datagram_endpoint() allow by default multiple processes to bind the same port

Kyle Stanley added the comment: > Since 3.5 has now reached end-of-life, this issue will not be fixed there so > it looks like it can be closed. Thanks, Ned <3 -- ___ Python tracker

[issue37228] UDP sockets created by create_datagram_endpoint() allow by default multiple processes to bind the same port

Ned Deily added the comment: Since 3.5 has now reached end-of-life, this issue will not be fixed there so it looks like it can be closed. -- resolution: -> fixed stage: patch review -> resolved status: open -> closed versions: -Python 3.5 ___

[issue34747] SSLSocket.context cannot be changed on non-connected sockets

Vincent Pelletier added the comment: Added: affects Python 3.9 This bug is still preventing (...or shall I say "discourages", as the setter is effective but raises) server-side SSL certificate reloading on long-running services. This codepath on listening sockets is necessary fo

[issue43571] Add option to create MPTCP sockets

Gregory P. Smith added the comment: Thanks for the contribution! Simple constant addition. I ignored the contributor CLA status as a result. There's only one way to write this non-logic plumbing. -- assignee: -> gregory.p.smith resolution: -> fixed stage: patch review -> commit

[issue43571] Add option to create MPTCP sockets

New submission from Gregory P. Smith : New changeset b05b48dd7ab68bf0046356f2abd6d7fe3b5b3d77 by Rui Cunha in branch 'master': bpo-43571: Add IPPROTO_MPTCP macro (GH-24946) https://github.com/python/cpython/commit/b05b48dd7ab68bf0046356f2abd6d7fe3b5b3d77 -- nosy: +gregory.p.smith

[issue43571] Add option to create MPTCP sockets

Change by Rui Cunha : -- keywords: +patch pull_requests: +23705 stage: -> patch review pull_request: https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/24946 ___ Python tracker ___

[issue43571] Add option to create MPTCP sockets

Change by Rui Cunha : -- components: Extension Modules nosy: RuiCunhaM, ncoghlan, petr.viktorin priority: normal severity: normal status: open title: Add option to create MPTCP sockets type: enhancement versions: Python 3.10 ___ Python tracker

[issue43183] Asyncio can't close sockets properly on Linux cause CLOSE_WAIT

Change by Bob : -- stage: -> resolved status: open -> closed ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe:

[issue43183] Asyncio can't close sockets properly on Linux cause CLOSE_WAIT

Change by Bob : -- assignee: -> christian.heimes components: +SSL nosy: +christian.heimes versions: +Python 3.10, Python 3.7, Python 3.9 ___ Python tracker ___

[issue43183] Asyncio can't close sockets properly on Linux cause CLOSE_WAIT

Change by Bob : Added file: https://bugs.python.org/file49799/server.py ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list

[issue43183] Asyncio can't close sockets properly on Linux cause CLOSE_WAIT

New submission from Bob : I wrote a simple proxy with Python3.8 and Asyncio, but I found it couldn't handle passive close correctly, a lot of CLOSE_WAIT sockets couldn't be released. I had trouble shot it for a long time with no progress. netstat -anop tcp | grep CLOSE_WAIT tcp6 0

[issue43183] Asyncio can't close sockets properly on Linux cause CLOSE_WAIT

Change by Bob : -- components: asyncio nosy: Bob_2021, asvetlov, yselivanov priority: normal severity: normal status: open title: Asyncio can't close sockets properly on Linux cause CLOSE_WAIT type: behavior versions: Python 3.8 ___ Python tracker

[issue18823] Idle: use pipes instead of sockets to talk with user subprocess

Terry J. Reedy added the comment: Problems with multiprocessing and tkinter on Mac might have been due to using the default start method, which used to be fork and is now spawn. This should be retested sometime. -- nosy: -kbk, roger.serwy versions: +Python 3.10 -Python 3.8

[issue40040] ProactorEventLoop fails on recvfrom with IPv6 sockets

Kjell Braden added the comment: sorry - is a duplicate of https://bugs.python.org/issue39148 -- resolution: -> duplicate stage: -> resolved status: open -> closed ___ Python tracker

[issue40040] ProactorEventLoop fails on recvfrom with IPv6 sockets

title: ProactorEventLoop fails on recvfrom with IPv6 sockets type: behavior versions: Python 3.8, Python 3.9 Added file: https://bugs.python.org/file48995/udp_ipv6_server.py ___

[issue37228] UDP sockets created by create_datagram_endpoint() allow by default multiple processes to bind the same port

Łukasz Langa added the comment: Downgrading priority since it's released everywhere except for 3.5. -- priority: deferred blocker -> normal ___ Python tracker ___

[issue37404] asyncio sock_recv blocks on ssl sockets.

Change by Andrew Svetlov : -- resolution: -> fixed stage: patch review -> resolved status: open -> closed ___ Python tracker ___

[issue37404] asyncio sock_recv blocks on ssl sockets.

Ido Michael added the comment: Sorry it broke the version, what could I have done to avoid this? Also can we close this issue? -- ___ Python tracker ___

[issue37228] UDP sockets created by create_datagram_endpoint() allow by default multiple processes to bind the same port

Kyle Stanley added the comment: Thanks for taking care of merging the remaining backport PRs for 3.6-3.8, Ned. Now, the only branch left is (potentially) 3.5. -- ___ Python tracker

[issue37228] UDP sockets created by create_datagram_endpoint() allow by default multiple processes to bind the same port

Change by Kyle Stanley : -- pull_requests: +17101 pull_request: https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/17632 ___ Python tracker ___

[issue37228] UDP sockets created by create_datagram_endpoint() allow by default multiple processes to bind the same port

Change by Kyle Stanley : -- pull_requests: +17099 pull_request: https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/17630 ___ Python tracker ___

[issue37228] UDP sockets created by create_datagram_endpoint() allow by default multiple processes to bind the same port

Change by Kyle Stanley : -- pull_requests: +17100 pull_request: https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/17631 ___ Python tracker ___

[issue37228] UDP sockets created by create_datagram_endpoint() allow by default multiple processes to bind the same port

Kyle Stanley added the comment: Opened a PR that adds the whatsnew entries to master, 3.8, 3.7, and 3.6: GH-17595. -- ___ Python tracker ___

[issue37228] UDP sockets created by create_datagram_endpoint() allow by default multiple processes to bind the same port

Change by Kyle Stanley : -- pull_requests: +17067 pull_request: https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/17595 ___ Python tracker ___

[issue37228] UDP sockets created by create_datagram_endpoint() allow by default multiple processes to bind the same port

Change by miss-islington : -- pull_requests: +17055 pull_request: https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/17581 ___ Python tracker ___

[issue37228] UDP sockets created by create_datagram_endpoint() allow by default multiple processes to bind the same port

Change by miss-islington : -- pull_requests: +17054 pull_request: https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/17580 ___ Python tracker ___

[issue37228] UDP sockets created by create_datagram_endpoint() allow by default multiple processes to bind the same port

Change by miss-islington : -- pull_requests: +17053 pull_request: https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/17579 ___ Python tracker ___

[issue37228] UDP sockets created by create_datagram_endpoint() allow by default multiple processes to bind the same port

Change by Kyle Stanley : -- pull_requests: +17051 pull_request: https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/17577 ___ Python tracker ___

[issue37228] UDP sockets created by create_datagram_endpoint() allow by default multiple processes to bind the same port

Kyle Stanley added the comment: > One more resource warning about unclosed resource being garbage collected. As > per the other tests I think transport and protocol need to be closed as per > below patch but someone can verify if it's the right approach. Ah, good catch. It's not needed when

[issue37228] UDP sockets created by create_datagram_endpoint() allow by default multiple processes to bind the same port

Kyle Stanley added the comment: > I'll fix them accordingly and open a new PR (as well as the backports). Nevermind. Upon further inspection, the other occurrences of `reuse_address=` were for create_server(), not create_datagram_endpoint(). The PR will only include the removal of the two

[issue37228] UDP sockets created by create_datagram_endpoint() allow by default multiple processes to bind the same port

Change by Guido van Rossum : -- nosy: -gvanrossum ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe:

[issue37228] UDP sockets created by create_datagram_endpoint() allow by default multiple processes to bind the same port

Karthikeyan Singaravelan added the comment: One more resource warning about unclosed resource being garbage collected. As per the other tests I think transport and protocol need to be closed as per below patch but someone can verify if it's the right approach. ./python.exe -X tracemalloc

[issue37228] UDP sockets created by create_datagram_endpoint() allow by default multiple processes to bind the same port

Kyle Stanley added the comment: > or left an outdated test somewhere that explicitly sets `reuse_address=False` Looks like this was the issue, I left a `reuse_address=False` in both test_create_datagram_endpoint_nosoreuseport and test_create_datagram_endpoint_ip_addr. I fixed it locally on

[issue37228] UDP sockets created by create_datagram_endpoint() allow by default multiple processes to bind the same port

Kyle Stanley added the comment: > The fix seems to generate few DeprecationWarning while running test suite > with -Wall. Thanks Karthikeyan, I'm guessing that I missed an assertWarns() or left an outdated test somewhere that explicitly sets `reuse_address=False` (since

[issue37228] UDP sockets created by create_datagram_endpoint() allow by default multiple processes to bind the same port

Karthikeyan Singaravelan added the comment: The fix seems to generate few DeprecationWarning while running test suite with -Wall. ➜ cpython git:(master) git checkout ab513a38c98695f271e448fe2cb7c5e39eef~1 Lib/asyncio Updated 1 path from 4fb4056fbc ➜ cpython git:(master) ✗ ./python.exe

[issue37228] UDP sockets created by create_datagram_endpoint() allow by default multiple processes to bind the same port

Kyle Stanley added the comment: Now that the backports for 3.6-3.8 are merged, I'll work on the What's New entries next. Waiting on feedback from Larry Hastings regarding the potential 3.5 backport, I'll add him to the nosy list. -- nosy: +larry

[issue37228] UDP sockets created by create_datagram_endpoint() allow by default multiple processes to bind the same port

Ned Deily added the comment: New changeset b23c0840ce07e03f2705fb08d94f8f03e5c5d5b8 by Ned Deily (Kyle Stanley) in branch '3.6': [3.6] bpo-37228: Fix loop.create_datagram_endpoint()'s usage of SO_REUSEADDR (GH-17311). (GH-17571)

[issue37228] UDP sockets created by create_datagram_endpoint() allow by default multiple processes to bind the same port

Change by Kyle Stanley : -- pull_requests: +17045 pull_request: https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/17571 ___ Python tracker ___

[issue37228] UDP sockets created by create_datagram_endpoint() allow by default multiple processes to bind the same port

Kyle Stanley added the comment: Oh okay, I'll work on the 3.6 backport first then. -- ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list

[issue37228] UDP sockets created by create_datagram_endpoint() allow by default multiple processes to bind the same port

Ned Deily added the comment: Actually, 3.6.10rc1 is currently blocked by this so if you do have time to work on it first, that would be great. -- ___ Python tracker ___

[issue37228] UDP sockets created by create_datagram_endpoint() allow by default multiple processes to bind the same port

Kyle Stanley added the comment: > since the release for 3.7.1 and 3.7.6 are coming up soon. Clarification: should be "since the release for 3.8.1 and 3.7.6 are coming up soon", that was a typo. -- ___ Python tracker

[issue37228] UDP sockets created by create_datagram_endpoint() allow by default multiple processes to bind the same port

Kyle Stanley added the comment: > The backport to 3.7 seems straightforward so I did it to unblock 3.7.6rc1. > The backport to 3.6 is a bit more complicated and 3.6.10rc1 can wait a bit > longer so I'll leave that for Kyle along with the various What's New entries. Thanks, Ned. I'll

[issue37228] UDP sockets created by create_datagram_endpoint() allow by default multiple processes to bind the same port

Ned Deily added the comment: The backport to 3.7 seems straightforward so I did it to unblock 3.7.6rc1. The backport to 3.6 is a bit more complicated and 3.6.10rc1 can wait a bit longer so I'll leave that for Kyle along with the various What's New entries. --

[issue37228] UDP sockets created by create_datagram_endpoint() allow by default multiple processes to bind the same port

Ned Deily added the comment: New changeset 95157c6a281ccfc7a92a17dfb8d7b5338cad5cb7 by Ned Deily in branch '3.7': bpo-37228: Fix loop.create_datagram_endpoint()'s usage of SO_REUSEADDR (GH-17311) (GH-17570) https://github.com/python/cpython/commit/95157c6a281ccfc7a92a17dfb8d7b5338cad5cb7

[issue37228] UDP sockets created by create_datagram_endpoint() allow by default multiple processes to bind the same port

Change by Ned Deily : -- pull_requests: +17044 stage: -> patch review pull_request: https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/17570 ___ Python tracker ___

[issue37228] UDP sockets created by create_datagram_endpoint() allow by default multiple processes to bind the same port

Kyle Stanley added the comment: Thanks for taking care of merging to 3.x (master) and 3.8, Łukasz! > Kyle, I'm releasing 3.8.1rc1 now. Please add the What's New entry before next > Monday (3.8.1). No problem, I'll definitely have time to do that before 3.8.1 final, likely in the next few

[issue37228] UDP sockets created by create_datagram_endpoint() allow by default multiple processes to bind the same port

Łukasz Langa added the comment: Kyle, I'm releasing 3.8.1rc1 now. Please add the What's New entry before next Monday (3.8.1). -- stage: patch review -> ___ Python tracker

[issue37228] UDP sockets created by create_datagram_endpoint() allow by default multiple processes to bind the same port

Łukasz Langa added the comment: New changeset 79c29742a8ba96fc933efe34e55e90537b3eb780 by Łukasz Langa (Miss Islington (bot)) in branch '3.8': bpo-37228: Fix loop.create_datagram_endpoint()'s usage of SO_REUSEADDR (GH-17311) (#17529)

[issue37228] UDP sockets created by create_datagram_endpoint() allow by default multiple processes to bind the same port

Change by miss-islington : -- pull_requests: +17007 stage: -> patch review pull_request: https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/17529 ___ Python tracker ___

[issue37228] UDP sockets created by create_datagram_endpoint() allow by default multiple processes to bind the same port

Łukasz Langa added the comment: New changeset ab513a38c98695f271e448fe2cb7c5e39eef by Łukasz Langa (Kyle Stanley) in branch 'master': bpo-37228: Fix loop.create_datagram_endpoint()'s usage of SO_REUSEADDR (#17311)

[issue37404] asyncio sock_recv blocks on ssl sockets.

Christian Heimes added the comment: The patch broke Python builds without ssl support and caused a minor performance regression in hot paths. I changed the code to only perform the check in debug mode. -- resolution: fixed -> stage: resolved -> patch review status: closed -> open

[issue37404] asyncio sock_recv blocks on ssl sockets.

Change by Christian Heimes : -- pull_requests: +17004 pull_request: https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/17526 ___ Python tracker ___

[issue37228] UDP sockets created by create_datagram_endpoint() allow by default multiple processes to bind the same port

Kyle Stanley added the comment: > Where are we with this? The deadline for 3.8.1 and 3.7.6 is coming up in a > few days. I believe we're just waiting on review and additional feedback on GH-17311, which implements Antoine's proposal. The only remaining component I can think of is the

[issue37228] UDP sockets created by create_datagram_endpoint() allow by default multiple processes to bind the same port

Ned Deily added the comment: Where are we with this? The deadline for 3.8.1 and 3.7.6 is coming up in a few days. -- ___ Python tracker ___

[issue37404] asyncio sock_recv blocks on ssl sockets.

Andrew Svetlov added the comment: New changeset 930cef2770b641f49e69b67840daaa53b65cd0e0 by Andrew Svetlov in branch '3.8': [3.8] bpo-37404: Raising value error if an SSLSocket is passed to asyncio functions (GH-16457) (#17496)

[issue37404] asyncio sock_recv blocks on ssl sockets.

Change by Andrew Svetlov : -- resolution: -> fixed stage: patch review -> resolved status: open -> closed versions: +Python 3.8, Python 3.9 ___ Python tracker ___

[issue37404] asyncio sock_recv blocks on ssl sockets.

miss-islington added the comment: New changeset a85066df9423d381e6b233469b00db55563a9f80 by Miss Islington (bot) in branch '3.7': bpo-37404: Raising value error if an SSLSocket is passed to asyncio functions (GH-16457)

[issue37404] asyncio sock_recv blocks on ssl sockets.

Change by Andrew Svetlov : -- pull_requests: +16974 pull_request: https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/17496 ___ Python tracker ___

[issue37404] asyncio sock_recv blocks on ssl sockets.

miss-islington added the comment: New changeset 892f9e0777f262d366d4747a54c33a1c15a49da6 by Miss Islington (bot) (idomic) in branch 'master': bpo-37404: Raising value error if an SSLSocket is passed to asyncio functions (GH-16457)

[issue37404] asyncio sock_recv blocks on ssl sockets.

Change by miss-islington : -- pull_requests: +16973 pull_request: https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/17495 ___ Python tracker ___

[issue37228] UDP sockets created by create_datagram_endpoint() allow by default multiple processes to bind the same port

Andrew Svetlov added the comment: I support Antoine's proposal. Let's remove the suspicious option if we cannot handle it correctly in a secured manner. If people still want to use SO_REUSEADDR they can apply it manually, old good transp.get_extra_info("socket") is still available.

[issue37228] UDP sockets created by create_datagram_endpoint() allow by default multiple processes to bind the same port

Kyle Stanley added the comment: > This was reported by a partner that was working porting our code to Android > but might be fixed current Android API levels. I cannot test this myself. Thanks, it's helpful to be aware of potential incompatibilities either way. I don't think we directly

[issue37228] UDP sockets created by create_datagram_endpoint() allow by default multiple processes to bind the same port

Jukka Väisänen added the comment: > Are you aware of what currently supported platforms have SO_REUSEPORT defined > where the *reuse_port* parameter doesn't actually work? This would be quite > helpful to know. This was reported by a partner that was working porting our code to Android but

[issue37228] UDP sockets created by create_datagram_endpoint() allow by default multiple processes to bind the same port

Kyle Stanley added the comment: > some platforms apparently do have SO_REUSEPORT defined but the option still > doesn't work, resulting in a ValueError exception from > create_datagram_endpoint(). Are you aware of what currently supported platforms have SO_REUSEPORT defined where the

[issue37228] UDP sockets created by create_datagram_endpoint() allow by default multiple processes to bind the same port

Jukka Väisänen added the comment: > A higher-level interface like asyncio doesn't necessarily want to map its > kwargs directly to non-portable low-level options like this. Also reuse_port has portability issues, the whole portability mess i s nicely summed up in:

[issue37228] UDP sockets created by create_datagram_endpoint() allow by default multiple processes to bind the same port

Kyle Stanley added the comment: > I was assuming we'd only do this on Linux, since that's where the bug is... > though now that you mention it the Windows behavior is probably wonky too. Yeah, but I'm not confident that the bug is exclusive to Linux. From what I've seen, it's a fairly

[issue37228] UDP sockets created by create_datagram_endpoint() allow by default multiple processes to bind the same port

Nathaniel Smith added the comment: I was assuming we'd only do this on Linux, since that's where the bug is... though now that you mention it the Windows behavior is probably wonky too. SO_REUSEADDR and SO_REUSEPORT have different semantics on all three of Windows/BSD/Linux. A higher-level

[issue37228] UDP sockets created by create_datagram_endpoint() allow by default multiple processes to bind the same port

Kyle Stanley added the comment: So after trying a few different implementations, I don't think the proposal to simply change `SO_REUSEADDR` -> `SO_REUSEPORT` will work, due to Windows incompatibility (based on the results from Azure Pipelines). `SO_REUSEADDR` is supported on Windows, but

[issue37228] UDP sockets created by create_datagram_endpoint() allow by default multiple processes to bind the same port

Guido van Rossum added the comment: (Don't wait for me, I am preoccupied with other things this week.) -- title: UDP sockets created by create_datagram_endpoint() allow by default multiple processes to bind the same port -> UDP sockets created by create_datagram_endpoint() al

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >