32 messages in org.freebsd.freebsd-archclose() of active socket does not wor...| From | Sent On | Attachments |
|---|---|---|
| Kostik Belousov | Dec 11, 2006 9:11 am | |
| Arne H. Juul | Dec 11, 2006 2:40 pm | |
| David Xu | Dec 11, 2006 4:15 pm | |
| Arne H. Juul | Dec 11, 2006 4:50 pm | |
| David Xu | Dec 11, 2006 5:05 pm | |
| Daniel Eischen | Dec 11, 2006 5:08 pm | |
| Bruce Evans | Dec 11, 2006 9:54 pm | |
| Poul-Henning Kamp | Dec 11, 2006 10:43 pm | |
| Daniel Eischen | Dec 12, 2006 5:21 am | |
| Kostik Belousov | Dec 12, 2006 5:59 am | |
| Daniel Eischen | Dec 12, 2006 6:24 am | |
| Daniel Eischen | Dec 12, 2006 6:35 am | |
| Kostik Belousov | Dec 12, 2006 6:38 am | |
| Daniel Eischen | Dec 12, 2006 12:49 pm | |
| David Xu | Dec 12, 2006 3:29 pm | |
| Bruce Evans | Dec 12, 2006 7:28 pm | |
| Julian Elischer | Dec 12, 2006 11:12 pm | |
| Bruce Evans | Dec 13, 2006 3:28 am | |
| David Xu | Dec 13, 2006 4:10 am | |
| Daniel Eischen | Dec 13, 2006 6:23 am | |
| Robert Watson | Dec 20, 2006 8:22 am | |
| Daniel Eischen | Dec 20, 2006 10:28 am | |
| David Xu | Dec 20, 2006 4:19 pm | |
| Julian Elischer | Dec 21, 2006 5:02 am | |
| Robert Watson | Dec 21, 2006 5:46 am | |
| Robert Watson | Dec 21, 2006 7:21 am | |
| Daniel Eischen | Dec 21, 2006 9:15 am | |
| John-Mark Gurney | Dec 21, 2006 6:17 pm | |
| David Xu | Dec 21, 2006 6:42 pm | |
| Daniel Eischen | Dec 21, 2006 7:35 pm | |
| John-Mark Gurney | Dec 21, 2006 8:07 pm | |
| Daniel Eischen | Dec 21, 2006 8:16 pm |
| Subject: | close() of active socket does not work on FreeBSD 6 | |
|---|---|---|
| From: | Daniel Eischen (deis...@freebsd.org) | |
| Date: | Dec 21, 2006 8:16:27 pm | |
| List: | org.freebsd.freebsd-arch | |
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006, John-Mark Gurney wrote:
Daniel Eischen wrote this message on Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 22:35 -0500:
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006, John-Mark Gurney wrote:
I used to expect something similar w/ an kqueue based event driven web server, and found that I had bugs due to assuming that I could close it whenever I want... What happens if you close the fd between the time select returns and you process it? What happens if the fd gets closed, and another thread (or an earlier fd that accepts connections) reuses that fd? And then youre state machine isn't read to get an event since it isn't suppose to get one yet...
The kernel isn't buggy wrt closing a fd when another thread is using it, it's the program that's buggy...
I agree also, but hanging without return isn't very detectable.
It's a lot more detectable than working 99% more of the time and failing when things get correupted due to a race.. :)
I dunno, I think returning an appropriate error on the actual call(s) that are problematic is easier to detect than trying to figure out just what is causing the hang, corruption, whatever. Perhaps I mean "debug" instead of "detect".
The best thing to do is to tell the programmer that he is doing something stupid, and returning with an error is the way that it is typically done. Solaris seems to have jumped through
As long as it's EDOOFUS... I don't see any other error that would be approriate...
EBADF. That's what Solaris returns and makes more sense to me.
some hoops to achieve this behavior, so I doubt it is without merit. OTOH, I'm not going to argue that it is one of the more important things we should be worried about ;-)
As long as it doesn't cost much more to do it... Hanging is just as good of an indication as returning an error... And I'd say it's better as it forces the buggy software to be fixed as opposed to simply ignoring the error which is likely what the programmer will do...
Yes, unfortunately, ignoring the error would probably happen a lot.
-- DE