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: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , 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 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline 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