tftpd won't run

I’m trying to run tftpd on an embedded system and trying to run
tftpd -p 69 directly , rather than through inetd.
However, it exits immediately with a code 1.
What could be wrong?
Thanks

Are you running it as root? Check the syslog for other clues.

-seanb

acellarius@yahoo.com wrote:

I’m trying to run tftpd on an embedded system and trying to run
tftpd -p 69 directly , rather than through inetd.
However, it exits immediately with a code 1.
What could be wrong?
Thanks

sloginfo logs an an error about SO_REUSEADDR.
I’m using npm-ttcpip. I suppose I can’t?
Is there no way tftpd can be made to use the tiny stack?

PS Some time ago there was mention that there will be
statically linked utils in order to avoid the overhead
of the .so’s for really constrained systems.
Is this going be available, or can I ask for it
case by case ?

On 22 Feb 2003 17:30:09 GMT, Sean Boudreau <seanb@node25.ott.qnx.com> wrote:

Are you running it as root? Check the syslog for other clues.

-seanb

acellarius@yahoo.com > wrote:
I’m trying to run tftpd on an embedded system and trying to run
tftpd -p 69 directly , rather than through inetd.
However, it exits immediately with a code 1.
What could be wrong?
Thanks

PS Some time ago there was mention that there will be
statically linked utils in order to avoid the overhead
of the .so’s for really constrained systems.
Is this going be available, or can I ask for it
case by case ?

One option you can use today in the IDE is to have System Builder diet your
shared libraries down to the minimal set required for the system. This is
even better then linking everything statically.

chris


Chris McKillop <cdm@qnx.com> “The faster I go, the behinder I get.”
Software Engineer, QSSL – Lewis Carroll –
http://qnx.wox.org/

It looks like tftpd can only be used via inetd with
the tiny stack. The -p option causes the SO_REUSEADDR
to be invoked which is not supported for UDP sockets
by the tiny stack.

-seanb

acellarius@yahoo.com wrote:

sloginfo logs an an error about SO_REUSEADDR.
I’m using npm-ttcpip. I suppose I can’t?
Is there no way tftpd can be made to use the tiny stack?

PS Some time ago there was mention that there will be
statically linked utils in order to avoid the overhead
of the .so’s for really constrained systems.
Is this going be available, or can I ask for it
case by case ?

On 22 Feb 2003 17:30:09 GMT, Sean Boudreau <> seanb@node25.ott.qnx.com> > wrote:

Are you running it as root? Check the syslog for other clues.

-seanb

acellarius@yahoo.com > wrote:
I’m trying to run tftpd on an embedded system and trying to run
tftpd -p 69 directly , rather than through inetd.
However, it exits immediately with a code 1.
What could be wrong?
Thanks

OK-thanks. This is useful to know.
How does inetd get around this limitation?

On 23 Feb 2003 01:13:33 GMT, Sean Boudreau <seanb@node25.ott.qnx.com> wrote:

It looks like tftpd can only be used via inetd with
the tiny stack. The -p option causes the SO_REUSEADDR
to be invoked which is not supported for UDP sockets
by the tiny stack.

On 22 Feb 2003 22:36:22 GMT, Chris McKillop <cdm@qnx.com> wrote:

PS Some time ago there was mention that there will be
statically linked utils in order to avoid the overhead
of the .so’s for really constrained systems.
Is this going be available, or can I ask for it
case by case ?


One option you can use today in the IDE is to have System Builder diet your
shared libraries down to the minimal set required for the system. This is
even better then linking everything statically.

True-I’ve seen good savings when using this option. I didn’t think of it
that way.

It just logs the error and continues. If the bind()
succeeds later on, no foul…

-seanb

acellarius@yahoo.com wrote:

OK-thanks. This is useful to know.
How does inetd get around this limitation?

On 23 Feb 2003 01:13:33 GMT, Sean Boudreau <> seanb@node25.ott.qnx.com> > wrote:

It looks like tftpd can only be used via inetd with
the tiny stack. The -p option causes the SO_REUSEADDR
to be invoked which is not supported for UDP sockets
by the tiny stack.