Re: [PATCH 0/3] fix reuseaddr regression

From: Cole Robinson
Date: Mon Sep 18 2017 - 13:44:41 EST

On 09/18/2017 12:28 PM, josef@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> I introduced a regression when reworking the fastreuse port stuff that allows
> bind conflicts to occur once a reuseaddr socket successfully opens on an
> existing tb. The root cause is I reversed an if statement which caused us to
> set the tb as if there were no owners on the socket if there were, which
> obviously is not correct.
> Dave I have follow up patches that will add a selftest for this case and I ran
> the other reuseport related tests as well. These need to go in pretty quickly
> as it breaks kvm, I've marked them for stable. Sorry for the regression,

To clarify, it doesn't really break KVM specifically, but it breaks a
port collision detection idiom that libvirt depends on to successfully
launch qemu/xen/... VMs in certain cases.