From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Jul 22 18:12:31 2013
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115])
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8C4DF8
 for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 18:12:31 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from rfg@tristatelogic.com)
Received: from outgoing.tristatelogic.com (segfault.tristatelogic.com
 [69.62.255.118]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E9382CA2
 for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 18:12:31 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from segfault-nmh-helo.tristatelogic.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by segfault.tristatelogic.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FB5A3ACEA
 for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 11:12:28 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg@tristatelogic.com>
To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: bin/176713: [patch] nc(1) closes network socket too soon
In-Reply-To: <CAJ-VmokAhE+uy4-3QAW6mK__sgw+L2_Y6M29O_+X+Ak5hoaW6Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 11:12:28 -0700
Message-ID: <99748.1374516748@server1.tristatelogic.com>
X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14
Precedence: list
List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD
 <freebsd-hackers.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-hackers>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>,
 <mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 18:12:31 -0000


In message <CAJ-VmokAhE+uy4-3QAW6mK__sgw+L2_Y6M29O_+X+Ak5hoaW6Q@mail.gmail.com>
Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> wrote:

>Right. Yes, I had a typo. I meant that it shouldn't die on seeing a
>read EOF after closing the write side of the socket.
>
>So, what you're saying is:
>
>* nc sees EOF on stdin

Yes.

>* nc decides to abort before seeing the rest of the data come in from
>the remote socket

Yes.