netdev - Re: [Bug 106241] New: shutdown(3)/close(3) behaviour is incorrect for sockets in accept(3)

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <562F6DB5.1040407@oracle.com>
Date:	Tue, 27 Oct 2015 12:27:33 +0000
From:	Alan Burlison <Alan.Burlison@...cle.com>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.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 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.

> Surely you did not gave all details on how it is really working.

In the case of Hadoop, it works the way I describe.

-- 
Alan Burlison
--
--
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