[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080124084001.GB7356@artemis.madism.org>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 09:40:01 +0100
From: Pierre Habouzit <madcoder@...ian.org>
To: Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: epoll and shared fd's
On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 09:10:18PM +0000, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jan 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I just came across a strange behavior of epoll that seems to
> > contradict the documentation. Here is what happens:
> >
> > * I have two processes P1 and P2, P1 accept()s connections, and send the
> > resulting file descriptors to P2 through a unix socket.
> >
> > * P2 registers the received socket in his epollfd.
> >
> > [time passes]
> >
> > * P2 is done with the socket and closes it
> >
> > * P2 gets events for the socket again !
> >
> >
> > Though the documentation says that if a process closes a file
> > descriptor, it gets unregistered. And yes I'm sure that P2 doens't dup()
> > the file descriptor. Though (because of a bug) it was still open in
> > P1[0], hence the referenced socket still live at the kernel level.
> >
> > Of course the userland workaround is to force the EPOLL_CTL_DEL before
> > the close, which I now do, but costs me a syscall where I wanted to
> > spare one :|
>
> For epoll, a close is when the kernel file* is released (that is, when all
> its instances are gone).
> We could put a special handling in filp_close(), but I don't think is a
> good idea, and we're better live with the current behaviour.
Okay, maybe updating the linux manpages to be more clear about that is
the way to go then. Thanks
--
·O· Pierre Habouzit
··O madcoder@...ian.org
OOO http://www.madism.org
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists