Re: Expected behavior of shutdown() in multi-threaded socket programming

[Nick Pelly <npelly@google.com>]

On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 1:46 AM, Iain Hibbert<plunky@rya-online.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Jun 2009, Nick Pelly wrote:
>
>> Any comments on this one? I would like to correct the behavior of
>> shutdown() on AF_BLUETOOTH sockets, but I have been advised by Marcel
>> Holtmann that we need to agree on the correct behavior first.
>>
>> How should shutdown() behave when other threads are blocked on the same =
socket?
>
> IMHO consistency should apply.
>
> The opengroup specification for shutdown() says
>
> =A0"The shutdown() function shall cause all or part of a full-duplex
> =A0connection on the socket associated with the file descriptor socket to
> =A0be shut down."
>
> and while that does not really cover the case when the socket is blocked
> in accept(), if all the other socket types abort the block then that is
> what the PF_BLUETOOTH sockets should do too.
>
> The opengroup specification for accept() suggests EINVAL would be returne=
d
> if the socket was not accepting connections and arguably that is the case
> after a shutdown(), though ECONNABORTED could be used too (your program
> displays ECONNABORTED on NetBSD for instance)
>
>> I also have similar results for other blocking syscalls such as
>> connect(), read(), write(), poll() etc, but the test program is not as
>> simple.
>
> They should all handle the shutdown().

Sounds good to me.

Thanks for the input.

Nick