[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151030054418.GA16702@netbsd.org>
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 05:44:18 +0000
From: David Holland <dholland-tech@...bsd.org>
To: Alan Burlison <Alan.Burlison@...cle.com>
Cc: David Holland <dholland-tech@...bsd.org>, Casper.Dik@...cle.com,
Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, eric.dumazet@...il.com,
stephen@...workplumber.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Bug 106241] New: shutdown(3)/close(3) behaviour is incorrect
for sockets in accept(3)
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 04:15:33PM +0000, Alan Burlison wrote:
> >close(2) as specified by POSIX doesn't prohibit this weird revoke-like
> >behavior, but there's nothing in there that mandates it either. (I
> >thought this discussion had already clarified that.)
>
> There was an attempt to interpret POSIX that way, with which I still
> disagree. If a FD is closed or reassigned then any current pending
> operations on it should be terminated.
C&V, please.
> >Note that while NetBSD apparently supports this behavior because
> >someone copied it from Solaris, I'm about to go recommend it be
> >removed.
>
> Which behaviour? The abort accept() on close() behaviour?
That, and aborting anything else too. Close isn't revoke.
--
David A. Holland
dholland@...bsd.org
--
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