9.3.2 behavior - explain please

[Chris Buxton]

They weren't both bound to port 53/UDP. One was, while the other was  
bound to port 53/TCP. How that transpired is anybody's guess, but  
I've seen it before.

Chris Buxton
Men & Mice

On Aug 1, 2007, at 6:41 PM, Barry Margolin wrote:

> In article <f8pa2b$d1v$1 at sf1.isc.org>, Pavel Urban <urbanp at mlp.cz>
> wrote:
>
>> Pavel Urban wrote:
>>> [root at dns ~]# lsof -i udp:53
>>> COMMAND  PID  USER   FD   TYPE   DEVICE SIZE NODE NAME
>>> named   6982 named   20u  IPv4 19672544       UDP dns.iol.cz:domain
>>> named   6982 named   22u  IPv4 19672546       UDP dns.iol.cz:domain
>>> named   6993 named   20u  IPv4 19672564       UDP dns.iol.cz:domain
>>> named   6993 named   21u  IPv4 19672566       UDP dns.iol.cz:domain
>>>
>>> Strange...
>>>
>>
>> Huh... I can see it now. There were indeed two instances of named.  
>> How
>> could that happen I don't know... Thanks a lot!
>
> That's very strange.  It's not supposed to be possible for multiple
> processes to bind to the same local address and UDP port.  Are you  
> sure
> 6993 and 6982 aren't threads of the same process?  On Linux, the PID
> identifies the thread, not the process.
>
> -- 
> Barry Margolin, barmar at alum.mit.edu
> Arlington, MA
> *** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
> *** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
>
>