Re: [PATCH 0/3] fix reuseaddr regression

[Cole Robinson <crobinso@redhat.com>]

On 09/18/2017 12:28 PM, josef@toxicpanda.com 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.

Thanks,
Cole