lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 05:44:09 -0700 From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> To: Alan Burlison <Alan.Burlison@...cle.com> Cc: Casper.Dik@...cle.com, Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, stephen@...workplumber.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, dholland-tech@...bsd.org Subject: Re: [Bug 106241] New: shutdown(3)/close(3) behaviour is incorrect for sockets in accept(3) On Tue, 2015-10-27 at 12:27 +0000, Alan Burlison wrote: > On 27/10/2015 12:01, Eric Dumazet wrote: > > > Are non multi threaded applications considered well written ? > > > > listener = socket(...); > > bind(listener, ...); > > listen(fd, 10000); > > Loop 1 10 > > if (fork() == 0) > > do_accept(listener) > > > > Now if a child does a close(listener), or is killed, you propose that it > > does an implicit shutdown() and all other children no longer can > > accept() ? > > No, of course not. I made it quite clear I was talking about MT programs. Nothing is clear. Sorry. Now shat about programs using both fork() model and MT, to get one MT process per NUMA node ? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists