From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alan Burlison Subject: Re: [Bug 106241] New: shutdown(3)/close(3) behaviour is incorrect for sockets in accept(3) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 17:07:19 +0100 Message-ID: <562A5B37.6050109@oracle.com> References: <20151021185104.GM22011@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20151021.182955.1434243485706993231.davem@davemloft.net> <5628636E.1020107@oracle.com> <20151022044458.GP22011@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20151022060304.GQ22011@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <201510220634.t9M6YJLD017883@room101.nl.oracle.com> <20151022172146.GS22011@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <201510221824.t9MIOp6n003978@room101.nl.oracle.com> <20151022190701.GV22011@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <201510221951.t9MJp5LC005892@room101.nl.oracle.com> <20151022215741.GW22011@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <201510230952.t9N9qYZJ021998@room101.nl.oracle.com> <1445605340.22974.140.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com> <562A37A3.8000705@oracle.com> <1445610118.22974.153.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com> <562A563D.6020600@oracle.com> <1445616011.22974. 158.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Casper.Dik@oracle.com, Al Viro , David Miller , stephen@networkplumber.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, dholland-tech@netbsd.org To: Eric Dumazet Return-path: Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com ([141.146.126.69]:17399 "EHLO aserp1040.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751933AbbJWQHa (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Oct 2015 12:07:30 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1445616011.22974.158.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 23/10/2015 17:00, Eric Dumazet wrote: >> Ermm, you *really* want me to submit a patch removing 'Conforms to >> POSIX.1-2001' from *every* Linux manpage? > > Only on the pages you think there is an error that matters. If there's consensus that the current shutdown(), dup2(), close() and accept() behaviour are not POSIX-compliant then I can do that, sure. >>> Have you tested the patch I sent ? >> >> The AF_UNIX poll one? No, I don't have the means to do so, and in any >> case that's not a POSIX issue, just a plain bug. I'm happy to log a bug >> if that helps. > > We submit patches when someone needs a fix. > > If not, we have more urgent issues to solve first. > > I wrote following test case, and confirmed the patch fixes the issue. > > I will submit it formally. Thanks, works for me - the poll() issue only affects AF_UNIX sockets in the listen state and is easily avoided by simply not setting the output bits in the poll events mask, so it's not exactly high priority. -- Alan Burlison --