Andi Kleen <ak@muc.de> writes:
> stevek@SteveK.COM (Steve Kann) writes:
>
> > Hello, kernel-ites:
> >
> > I mentioned this in an earlier message titled "kernel blocks too
> > long with SO_LINGER", and since that time I did some investigation, and
> > have come to the conclusion that there is an error in the 2.2 kernel.
>
> There is never any "indefinate" block on close, because the retransmission
> timer for the FIN will kill (and wakeup) the sock after some time.
>
> IMHO the behaviour is correct, otherwise the application could not be
> sure that really all data has reached the other end. This way you are
> guaranteed to get a error return when data is lost.
Ah, but Stevens is (was, may he rest in peace) of the opinion that a
linger time of 0 should send a RST, and a stack that did not do this
was broken. (Mind you, having an application being able to send a RST
is unreliable because such a RST is not retransmitted, which is the
reason I always suspected Linux did not allow it -- but I would love
to hear that said out loud (and in the comments) by the Linux network
folk, given that Linux goes against the standard here.)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Feb 05 2000 - 13:04:36 EST