Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752596Ab0HZEET (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Aug 2010 00:04:19 -0400 Received: from fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp ([192.51.44.35]:46638 "EHLO fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750864Ab0HZEER (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Aug 2010 00:04:17 -0400 X-SecurityPolicyCheck-FJ: OK by FujitsuOutboundMailChecker v1.3.1 From: KOSAKI Motohiro To: Ben Hutchings Subject: Re: [PATCH] tcp: select(writefds) don't hang up when a peer close connection Cc: kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, David Miller , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org In-Reply-To: <1282785886.22839.199.camel@localhost> References: <20100825.153424.246521475.davem@davemloft.net> <1282785886.22839.199.camel@localhost> Message-Id: <20100826125357.F667.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: Becky! ver. 2.50.07 [ja] Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 12:55:12 +0900 (JST) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2994 Lines: 100 > On Wed, 2010-08-25 at 15:34 -0700, David Miller wrote: > > From: KOSAKI Motohiro > > Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 11:05:48 +0900 (JST) > > > > > This issue come from ruby language community. Below test program > > > hang up when only run on Linux. > > > > > > % uname -mrsv > > > Linux 2.6.26-2-486 #1 Sat Dec 26 08:37:39 UTC 2009 i686 > > > % ruby -rsocket -ve ' > > > BasicSocket.do_not_reverse_lookup = true > > > serv = TCPServer.open("127.0.0.1", 0) > > > s1 = TCPSocket.open("127.0.0.1", serv.addr[1]) > > > s2 = serv.accept > > > s2.close > > > s1.write("a") rescue p $! > > > s1.write("a") rescue p $! > > > Thread.new { > > > s1.write("a") > > > }.join' > > > ruby 1.9.3dev (2010-07-06 trunk 28554) [i686-linux] > > > # > > > [Hang Here] > [...] > > And in this case here, I call into question the behavior of Ruby and > > the application from two perspectives: > > > > 1) Unlike all of the other conditions signalled by poll() this is > > one the application explicitly created and therefore knows about. > > > > If the application calls close() or shutdown() with the send flag > > set, IT KNOWS what is going to happen on a write() attempt. > [...] > > This example seems to have both server (serv, s2) and client (s1) in the > same process for simplicity. The server socket (s2) is closed and the > client cannot be expected to know that. Of course the client ought to > drop the connection after the first EPIPE, but it's reasonable to expect > that this is a sticky condition just as it would be for a pipe. > > Here's a similar test case in C: > > #include > #include > #include > > #include > #include > #include > #include > > int main(void) > { > struct sockaddr sa; > struct timeval tv; > int serv, s1, s2; > socklen_t len; > fd_set fds; > > signal(SIGPIPE, SIG_IGN); > > serv = socket(AF_INET, SOCK_STREAM, 0); > assert(serv >= 0); > assert(!listen(serv, 1)); > len = sizeof(sa); > assert(!getsockname(serv, &sa, &len)); > > s1 = socket(AF_INET, SOCK_STREAM, 0); > assert(s1 >= 0); > assert(!connect(s1, &sa, len)); > len = sizeof(sa); > > s2 = accept(serv, &sa, &len); > assert(s2 >= 0); > close(s2); > > for (;;) { > printf("write: %d\n", write(s1, "a", 1)); > FD_ZERO(&fds); > FD_SET(s1, &fds); > tv.tv_sec = 1; > tv.tv_usec = 0; > printf("select: %d\n", select(s1 + 1, NULL, &fds, NULL, &tv)); > } > return 0; > } Cool! Ben, I think your code is cleaner than mine. If you allow me, I hope to include this one into my patch description. Thanks. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/