Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2017 22:16:13 -0800 From: Mark Johnston <markj@FreeBSD.org> To: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> Cc: jch@FreeBSD.org, hiren@FreeBSD.org, Jason Eggleston <jeggleston@llnw.com>, rrs@FreeBSD.org, jtl@FreeBSD.org, net@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: listening sockets as non sockets Message-ID: <20170127061613.GA61354@wkstn-mjohnston.west.isilon.com> In-Reply-To: <20170127041557.GN2611@FreeBSD.org> References: <20170127005251.GM2611@FreeBSD.org> <20170127014117.GA90480@raichu> <20170127041557.GN2611@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 08:15:57PM -0800, Gleb Smirnoff wrote: > On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 05:41:17PM -0800, Mark Johnston wrote: > M> > It passes regression tests from tools/regression/sockets and tests/sys, > M> > including the race tests, and including accept filter ones. > M> > M> I haven't yet looked much at the diff, so sorry in advance if this > M> question is inappropriate. > M> > M> One problem I've fought a couple of times (with Infiniband SDP and unix > M> sockets) is a race between accept(2) and a concurrent close of the > M> listening socket. Right now, this problem has to be handled in the > M> domain-specific code (see r303855 for instance), and it's generally > M> awkward to do so. Does your work address this intrinsic race in any way? > M> > M> FWIW, I have a basic test case for unix sockets here, though I believe > M> it's been incorporated into stress2: > M> https://people.freebsd.org/~markj/unix_socket_detach.c > > This is strees2/misc/unix_socket_detach.sh, isn't it? Yep. unix_socket_detach2.sh too. > My patch survived > running it during night. I have also looked at r303855 and its code isn't > touched by my patch. I will look further if the problem can be solved > in general at socket layer. Thanks for point. Thanks for looking!
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20170127061613.GA61354>