From owner-freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org Wed Apr 22 17:32:23 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C2EB2BB8D0 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 2020 17:32:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (mailman.nyi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::50:13]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 496nYy75M1z4Y0n for ; Wed, 22 Apr 2020 17:32:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) id F35E92BB8CF; Wed, 22 Apr 2020 17:32:22 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: bugs@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F32202BB8CE for ; Wed, 22 Apr 2020 17:32:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 496nYy6Dx7z4Y0l for ; Wed, 22 Apr 2020 17:32:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::50:1d]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D18FE1E606 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 2020 17:32:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.5]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 03MHWM7L012458 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 2020 17:32:22 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: (from www@localhost) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id 03MHWMRZ012457 for bugs@FreeBSD.org; Wed, 22 Apr 2020 17:32:22 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) X-Authentication-Warning: kenobi.freebsd.org: www set sender to bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org using -f From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 245817] sendto() can return ENOTCONN on SOCK_STREAM unix socket, which is not documented Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2020 17:32:21 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: AssignedTo X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Documentation X-Bugzilla-Component: Manual Pages X-Bugzilla-Version: Latest X-Bugzilla-Keywords: patch X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Only Me X-Bugzilla-Who: markj@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Status: New X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: --- X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: bugs@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2020 17:32:23 -0000 https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D245817 --- Comment #2 from Mark Johnston --- I see. The SOCK_STREAM/SEQPACKET unix socket protocol descriptions set PR_CONNREQUIRED, which effectively disables sendto()/sendmsg() on unconnect= ed unix sockets. That is surprising since uipc_send() has explicit handling f= or that: 1137 case SOCK_SEQPACKET:=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20 1138 case SOCK_STREAM:=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20 1139 if ((so->so_state & SS_ISCONNECTED) =3D=3D 0) {=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20 1140 if (nam !=3D NULL) {=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20 1141 error =3D connect_internal(so, nam, td= );=20=20=20=20=20 1142 if (error !=3D 0)=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20 1143 break;=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20 1144 } else {=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20 1145 error =3D ENOTCONN;=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20 1146 break;=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20 1147 }=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20 1148 } else {=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20 1149 UNP_PCB_LOCK(unp);=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20 1150 } I think we can probably just clear PR_CONNREQUIRED for unix sockets. Thoug= h, I think we should indeed document ENOTCONN as a possible error for sendto() a= nd sendmsg(). It is documented here for instance: https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/sendto.html Also weird is this fragment in sosend_generic(): 1626 /*=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20 1627 * `sendto' and `sendmsg' is allowed on a connection-=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20 1628 * based socket if it supports implied connect= .=20=20=20=20 1629 * Return ENOTCONN if not connected and no add= ress is=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20 1630 * supplied.=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20 1631 */=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20 1632 if ((so->so_proto->pr_flags & PR_CONNREQUIRED)= &&=20=20 1633 (so->so_proto->pr_flags & PR_IMPLOPCL) =3D= =3D 0) {=20 1634 if ((so->so_state & SS_ISCONFIRMING) = =3D=3D 0 &&=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20 1635 !(resid =3D=3D 0 && clen !=3D 0)) = {=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20 1636 SOCKBUF_UNLOCK(&so->so_snd);= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20 1637 error =3D ENOTCONN;=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20 1638 goto release;=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20 1639 } Specifically, the !(resid =3D=3D 0 && clen !=3D 0) check: we only return an= error if we are trying to send data and there is no control message. So, we *can* se= nd control messages over unconnected stream sockets even if CONNREQUIRED is se= t. Does any protocol except PF_LOCAL handle control messages to begin with? --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=