Re: send(), sendmsg(), sendto() not thread-safe

[Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hp.com>]

David S. Miller wrote:
> From: Mark A Smith <mark1smi@us.ibm.com>
> Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 14:39:06 -0700
> 
> 
>>I discovered that in some cases, send(), sendmsg(), and sendto() are not
>>thread-safe. Although the man page for these functions does not specify
>>whether these functions are supposed to be thread-safe, my reading of the
>>POSIX/SUSv3 specification tells me that they should be. I traced the
>>problem to tcp_sendmsg(). I was very curious about this issue, so I wrote
>>up a small page to describe in more detail my findings. You can find it at:
>>http://www.almaden.ibm.com/cs/people/marksmith/sendmsg.html .


# ./sendmsgclient localhost
ERROR! We should have all 0! We don't!
buff[16384]=1
buff[16385]=1
buff[16386]=1
buff[16387]=1
buff[16388]=1
buff[16389]=1
buff[16390]=1
buff[16391]=1
buff[16392]=1
buff[16393]=1
That's 10/32768 bad bytes
# uname -a
HP-UX tarry B.11.23 U ia64 2397028692 unlimited-user license

Given that the URL above asserts that HP-UX claims atomicity, either 
there is a bug in the UX stack, or perhaps the test?  I took a quick 
look at the HP-UX 11iv2 (aka 11.23) manpage for sendmsg and didn't see 
anything about atomicity there - on which manpage(s) or docs was the 
assertion of HP-UX atomicity made?

I presume this is only for "blocking" sockets?  I cannot at least off 
the top of my head see how a stack could offer it on non-blocking sockets.

> And frankly, BSD defines BSD socket semantics here not some wording in
> the POSIX standards.

Have BSD socket semantics ever been updated/clarified any any 
quasi-official manner since the popular presence of threads?  Or 
are/were Posix/Xopen filling a gap?

rick jones