X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
DomainKey-Signature:	a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:date:from:to:subject:message-id:reply-to
	:references:mime-version:content-type:in-reply-to; q=dns; s=
	default; b=SGGT1JnSMw7gZ5jFo0qTCHDZOVavqo/HtUP2o/I+FgcAvc3PKqezs
	HsCaVnZ8TaRViCjHi5u4F1xm9ZmGwkNC2tY8UM9U0t7xO3YuSZ8tKHFjCi+ziUDQ
	nEa3sYaX2JKZzALTZA7nBEjLMpsrmy7cShYzkjyfaVO6/vDRJtQEV4=
DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:date:from:to:subject:message-id:reply-to
	:references:mime-version:content-type:in-reply-to; s=default;
	bh=cd8sFxPlw8Ushs0J4GPx3QNC4Ao=; b=Q+jAQsXrAfJElpgDORFVuLItGfrD
	espcNPjOT716Q3nLgCT1ZtSke0LdAyLMSSLolltcoXn+2xStBYOQeDkuT55+R0wx
	TzJ0UggAf0pPcnLBSi/tPh+mLjJm6g3Xa0xxkMgl5EBfe/5/oCoDWxypQG/2mF0V
	YTdAi1Wj3tq8H80=
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id:	<cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
X-Spam-SWARE-Status:	No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
Date:	Fri, 12 Apr 2013 17:56:06 +0200
From:	Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: UDP/DTLS sockets communication pattern is broken in Cygwin
Message-ID:	<20130412155606.GF11358@calimero.vinschen.de>
Reply-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References:	<031222CBCF33214AB2EB4ABA279428A30140C1ACA374 AT SJCPMAILBOX01 DOT citrite DOT net> <20130411212115 DOT GA1376 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <031222CBCF33214AB2EB4ABA279428A30140C1ACA378 AT SJCPMAILBOX01 DOT citrite DOT net> <20130412114354 DOT GC11358 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <031222CBCF33214AB2EB4ABA279428A30140C1ACA37B AT SJCPMAILBOX01 DOT citrite DOT net>
MIME-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<031222CBCF33214AB2EB4ABA279428A30140C1ACA37B@SJCPMAILBOX01.citrite.net>
User-Agent:	Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)

On Apr 12 08:44, Oleg Moskalenko wrote:
> 
> > 
> > However, I think I found a workaround on the application level.
> > Apparently all packets sent to a specific address are sent to the first socket
> > which has been bound to the address.  If that socket has been closed, the next in
> > line gets the packets (unless it has been connected and the sender is not the
> > connected address).  So what I did was this:
> > 
> > Before starting step 14, I created a third socket, which then replaced the server
> > socket:
> 
> Thank you, Corinna, for the reply and for the idea.
> 
> Unfortunately, the workaround will work well only in the case of a single client. 
> In the multiple clients scenario, it will create a sort of race condition: 
> 
> 1) some packets already scheduled by OS to the "original" packet will be lost;
> 2) some packets delivered in between the sockets destruction/creation will be wrongly rejected.
> 
> But this is better than nothing. I'll think whether we can live with it.

Too bad.  I don't know the DTLS protocol, but isn't it possible to do
the server part with a single UDP socket?  If you keep track of the
already connected clients, you know if the just incoming packet is a
connected or connecting client, and then you can use different threads
to handle the packet further.


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Maintainer                 cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

- Raw text -