Re: xinetd UDP vs. TCP Output
Short answer:
It's not possible.
Long answer:
After the research it took me, I'm just too damned lazy to write it up. Just trust me, can't be done.
Hal
On Feb 24, 2011, at 3:49 AM, Hal Vaughan wrote:
> I'm using a small program that's started by xinetd. The incoming signal to it would be a broadcast signal, which means it has to be UDP.
>
> I wrote two versions of the test program, one in Perl and one as a bash script and both ran into the same problem.
>
> They worked fine when I first set them up and set up the service in xinetd as using TCP. Then I changed the service to UDP and made the appropriate changes to my programs.
>
> They still logged everything, they still received incoming messages from the other test programs that were communicating to them (either directly or through a broadcast), but they did NOT send any data back. I checked it this with Wireshark. The incoming data showed up, but the data these programs were supposed to send back didn't even go out over the LAN.
>
> The programs ran and exited properly, but the output to the network never showed up.
>
> While I don't know but so much about networking, I know TCP and UDP sockets are notably different. I can't find anything in the documentation that indicates that for a program using UDP sockets, that it has to use something other than STDIN and STDOUT. I even found sources that say you SHOULD still be using STDIN and STDOUT for programs using UDP through xinetd.
>
> I don't consider this just a programming question, since it's the same in both languages. I strongly suspect there's a different way to handle the output that's supposed to go back over the network for UDP (vs. TCP).
>
> Any ideas on what might be needed?
>
>
> Thank you!
>
>
> Hal
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
> Archive: [🔎] 088447F7-8CAD-47AD-BA76-7D3346C7A2B4@halblog.com">http://lists.debian.org/[🔎] 088447F7-8CAD-47AD-BA76-7D3346C7A2B4@halblog.com
>
>
Reply to: