9.3.2 behavior - explain please

[Barry Margolin]

In article <f8tc1m$2kg3$1 at sf1.isc.org>,
 Chris Buxton <cbuxton at menandmice.com> wrote:

> They weren't both bound to port 53/UDP. One was, while the other was  
> bound to port 53/TCP. How that transpired is anybody's guess, but  
> I've seen it before.

So is lsof lying?  It says UDP for both of them below.

> 
> Chris Buxton
> Men & Mice
> 
> On Aug 1, 2007, at 6:41 PM, Barry Margolin wrote:
> 
> > In article <f8pa2b$d1v$1 at sf1.isc.org>, Pavel Urban <urbanp at mlp.cz>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Pavel Urban wrote:
> >>> [root at dns ~]# lsof -i udp:53
> >>> COMMAND  PID  USER   FD   TYPE   DEVICE SIZE NODE NAME
> >>> named   6982 named   20u  IPv4 19672544       UDP dns.iol.cz:domain
> >>> named   6982 named   22u  IPv4 19672546       UDP dns.iol.cz:domain
> >>> named   6993 named   20u  IPv4 19672564       UDP dns.iol.cz:domain
> >>> named   6993 named   21u  IPv4 19672566       UDP dns.iol.cz:domain
> >>>
> >>> Strange...
> >>>
> >>
> >> Huh... I can see it now. There were indeed two instances of named.  
> >> How
> >> could that happen I don't know... Thanks a lot!
> >
> > That's very strange.  It's not supposed to be possible for multiple
> > processes to bind to the same local address and UDP port.  Are you  
> > sure
> > 6993 and 6982 aren't threads of the same process?  On Linux, the PID
> > identifies the thread, not the process.
> >
> > -- 
> > Barry Margolin, barmar at alum.mit.edu
> > Arlington, MA
> > *** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
> > *** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
> >
> >

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar at alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***