Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 03:56:27 +0200 From: Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@gmail.com> To: Benjamin Kaduk <bjkfbsd@gmail.com> Cc: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: current fd allocation idiom Message-ID: <20140813015627.GC17869@dft-labs.eu> In-Reply-To: <CAJ5_RoADBqeYL2=XzBeZ6d5fPVqdwkOFoe==AGOZmezBTK%2B5mw@mail.gmail.com> References: <20140717235538.GA15714@dft-labs.eu> <20140718155959.GN93733@kib.kiev.ua> <20140718191928.GB7179@dft-labs.eu> <201408111124.52064.jhb@freebsd.org> <20140812233617.GA17869@dft-labs.eu> <CAJ5_RoADBqeYL2=XzBeZ6d5fPVqdwkOFoe==AGOZmezBTK%2B5mw@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 09:31:15PM -0400, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 7:36 PM, Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I would expect soabort to result in a timeout/reset as opposed to regular > > connection close. > > > > Comments around soabort suggest it should not be used as a replacement > > for close, but maybe this is largely because of what the other end will > > see. That will need to be investigated. > > > > > I added some text regarding soabort to socket.9 in r266962 -- does that > help clarify the situation? > Nope. :-) It is unclear if the only motivation here is making sure nobody else sees the socket when given thread calls soabort. This would be easily guaranteed in here: fd allocation failed, fp with given socket was never exposed to anyone. So, if you say soabort would work here just fine, I'm happy to use it and blame you for problems. :-) -- Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik gmail.com>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20140813015627.GC17869>