From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Holland Subject: Re: [Bug 106241] New: shutdown(3)/close(3) behaviour is incorrect for sockets in accept(3) Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 05:44:18 +0000 Message-ID: <20151030054418.GA16702@netbsd.org> References: <201510221951.t9MJp5LC005892@room101.nl.oracle.com> <20151022215741.GW22011@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <201510230952.t9N9qYZJ021998@room101.nl.oracle.com> <20151024023054.GZ22011@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <201510270908.t9R9873a001683@room101.nl.oracle.com> <562F577E.6000901@oracle.com> <20151029145847.GA10859@netbsd.org> <563238D0.2040802@oracle.com> <20151029160131.GA18961@netbsd.org> <56324625.9000803@oracle.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: David Holland , Casper.Dik@oracle.com, Al Viro , David Miller , eric.dumazet@gmail.com, stephen@networkplumber.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Alan Burlison Return-path: Received: from mail.netbsd.org ([149.20.53.66]:61403 "EHLO mail.netbsd.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751286AbbJ3FoU (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Oct 2015 01:44:20 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <56324625.9000803@oracle.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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@netbsd.org