From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat Jan  3 00:55:11 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id AAECE16A4CE; Sat,  3 Jan 2004 00:55:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dglawrence.com (12-224-163-157.client.attbi.com
	[12.224.163.157])	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 48E8543D49; Sat,  3 Jan 2004 00:55:10 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from dg@nexus.dglawrence.com)
Received: from nexus.dglawrence.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by dglawrence.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id i038tFkk014417;
	Sat, 3 Jan 2004 00:55:15 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from dg@nexus.dglawrence.com)
Received: (from dg@localhost)
	by nexus.dglawrence.com (8.12.10/8.12.3/Submit) id i038tFFn014416;
	Sat, 3 Jan 2004 00:55:15 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 00:55:15 -0800
From: "David G. Lawrence" <dg@root.com>
To: Alfred Perlstein <alfred@freebsd.org>
Message-ID: <20040103085515.GR213@nexus.dglawrence.com>
References: <20040103005338.GU9623@elvis.mu.org>
	<20040103054115.GV56722@nexus.dglawrence.com>
	<20040103060156.GV9623@elvis.mu.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20040103060156.GV9623@elvis.mu.org>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 03 Jan 2004 04:57:57 -0800
cc: hackers@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sendfile erroniously returns ENOTCONN.
X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD
	<freebsd-hackers.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Sat, 03 Jan 2004 08:55:11 -0000

> * David G. Lawrence <dg@dglawrence.com> [040102 21:41] wrote:
> > 
> >    sendfile(8) tries to maintain compatibility with sosend as much as is
> > reasonable. ENOTCONN is the appropriate error to return if the socket
> > isn't connected. sosend checks SS_CANTSENDMORE prior to the check for
> > SS_ISCONNECTED, however, and returns EPIPE in that case. Perhaps sendfile
> > should be changed to do the same (just a though - I'm not proposing
> > that this be done).
> >    Removing the check entirely seems clearly wrong, however.
> 
> I had forgotten that sendfile bypasses sosend(9).  I could
> add the check, is there a reason not to?  The one reason I
> figured was that sometimes blocking sigpipe can be hairy inside
> libraries.   Now that we can selectively disable SIGPIPE using
> the setsockopt using Apple's code this is less of an issue.

   Yes, I think checking for SS_CATSENDMORE (and returning EPIPE) prior to
checking SS_ISCONNECTED (and returning ENOTCONN as it does now) is the right
thing to do.

-DG

David G. Lawrence
President
Download Technologies, Inc. - http://www.downloadtech.com - (866) 399 8500
TeraSolutions, Inc. - http://www.terasolutions.com - (888) 346 7175
The FreeBSD Project - http://www.freebsd.org
Pave the road of life with opportunities.