Nicolas Cannasse wrote: > The sockets are non-blocking. Ouch, that's a serious bug. Non-blocking operations shouldn't block! > Checking with netstat and ss I can confirm that both Send and Recv > queues are empty, which makes the recv() behavior consistent. > > However since this problem does not occur without threads, we can be > sure that the blame is still on the receiver. > > In a practical case, we have a thread blocked in recv() for more than 12 > hours, which is way beyond the timeout of the sender connection. The > socket has already been closed by the sender so recv() should at least > be noticed and returns 0. Can you clarify what you mean by "the socket has already been closed by the sender"? You mean the other end of the TCP connection shut it down? By "the socket", you don't mean the socket you called 'recv' on, right? You mean the socket on the other end that's connected to it? > Is it safe to assume that when either send() or recv() get interrupted > by a signal and returns EINTR, no actual data has been either sent or > consumed ? And if it's not, is there any other way around this ? EINTR can only be return if 'send' or 'recv' have not sent or received anything. Otherwise the connection would be left in an indeterminate state. DS -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
