On Mon, 21 Oct 2024 13:12:51 +0200, Stuart Henderson <s...@spacehopper.org> wrote: > > I think that change is appropriate for pf. >
Brad, Stuart, are you ok with it to -current? Special in the case that seems that dovecot-2.3 will be around for a quite long time dues to removed features at 2.4. > -- > Sent from a phone, apologies for poor formatting. > > On 20 October 2024 03:59:33 Brad Smith <b...@comstyle.com> wrote: > > On 2024-10-13 5:52 a.m., Kirill A. Korinsky wrote: > >> ports@, Brad, Here a backport of small fix for OpenBSD from mine PR > >> to fix 2.4 branch on > >> OpenBSD: https://github.com/dovecot/core/pull/224 Right now I can > >> find in logs a errors like: Fatal: connect(...) failed: Address > >> already in use not often, like a few times per week. With this fix > >> which extend FreeBSD's condition to OpenBSD as well, such > >> errors dissapears. The diff: > > Seeing as the PR is a bunch of fixes, either way put a brief description > > at the top of the patch. You might want to look at updating the comment > > at the very top of lib/net.c to include OpenBSD. > > for (try = 0;;) { fd = net_connect_ip_once(ip, port, my_ip, sock_type, > > blocking); if (fd != -1 || try++ >= MAX_CONNECT_RETRIES || (errno != > > EADDRNOTAVAIL > > #if defined(__FreeBSD__) || defined(__OpenBSD__) /* busy */ && errno > > != EADDRINUSE /* pf may cause this if another connection used the same > > port recently */ && errno != EACCES > > #endif )) I am not sure what is considered normal and appropriate for > > userland > > network and PF. I guess I'd be Ok if someone else more familiar with > > these kinds of bits said this is appropriate. > >> > -- wbr, Kirill
