Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
bpo-37228: Fix loop.create_datagram_endpoint()'s usage of SO_REUSEADDR #17311
bpo-37228: Fix loop.create_datagram_endpoint()'s usage of SO_REUSEADDR #17311
Changes from all commits
d748ca169faa22dea5eb3a96fe612cebb8d92cf3013292cb13146c7fb83052ef0e0369f8b44ef55314d8dc521c5File filter
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
aerosNov 22, 2019
•
edited
Author
Member
Is it adequate to have "significant security concern" or should we explicitly explain the vulnerability? I left it out because I think it might encourage potential exploitation on systems that haven't updated to the latest release of their respective version (such as a system on Python 3.5.9 or lower), which I'd rather avoid doing.
pitrouNov 25, 2019
Member
I think the vulnerability should be explicitly described. Perhaps not in depth, but at least let the reader understand.
aerosNov 25, 2019
•
edited
Author
Member
@pitrou
Done. Let me know if the new description is sufficient.
aerosNov 21, 2019
•
edited
Author
Member
Should we have a similar default for
reuse_portor should users have to explicitly specify it?Personally, I'm in favor of having
reuse_portas the default on supported platforms, but either would be fine.