From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [Bug 106241] New: shutdown(3)/close(3) behaviour is incorrect for sockets in accept(3) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 18:54:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20151029.185449.456371093991888866.davem@davemloft.net> References: <56324625.9000803@oracle.com> <20151029170748.GG22011@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <5632538C.7070401@oracle.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk, eric.dumazet@gmail.com, stephen@networkplumber.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Alan.Burlison@oracle.com Return-path: Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([149.20.54.216]:59386 "EHLO shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752268AbbJ3BiD (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Oct 2015 21:38:03 -0400 In-Reply-To: <5632538C.7070401@oracle.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Alan Burlison Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 17:12:44 +0000 > On 29/10/2015 17:07, Al Viro wrote: > >> Could the esteemed sir possibly be ars^H^H^Hprevailed upon to quote >> the exact >> place in POSIX that requires such behaviour? > > If that's the way the conversation is going to go, sorry, no. I find Al's request to be frankly quite reasonable, as is his frustration expressed in his tone as well. Furthermore, NetBSD's intention to try and get rid of the close() on accept() behavior shows that the Linux developers are not in the minority of being against requiring this behavior or even finding it desirable in any way.