Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Message-ID:	<3E8262B0.8070503@linuxforum.net>
Date:	Thu, 27 Mar 2003 10:32:16 +0800
From:	David Huang <hzhr AT linuxforum DOT net>
User-Agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.3) Gecko/20030312
X-Accept-Language:	zh-cn, en-us, en, ja
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: Failed non-blocking connect returns incorrect errno on AF_UNIX
	protocol
References:	<3E80F8E1 DOT 2000409 AT linuxforum DOT net> <20030326085220 DOT GQ23762 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de>
In-Reply-To:	<20030326085220.GQ23762@cygbert.vinschen.de>

Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2003 at 08:48:33AM +0800, David Huang wrote:
> 
>>Failed non-blocking connect returns incorrect errno on AF_UNIX protocol.
>>See attached test program.
>>
>>On cygwin:
>>$ ./afunix
>>EINPROGRESS: Operation now in progress
>>
>>On
>>Linux 2.4 (Debian 2.2)
>>Linux 2.4 (Redhat 7.3)
>>Sun Solaris (8):
>>$ ./afunix
>>ECONNREFUSED: Connection refused
>>
>>When i comment following code:
>>//	if (fcntl (fd2, F_SETFL, O_NONBLOCK) < 0)
>>//		printf ("Failed to set fd non-blocking");
>>The result is
>>ECONNREFUSED: Connection refused
>>
>>It seems an old bug.
>>I don't know whether it effect others address/protocol families.
> 
> 
> I don't see that it's an error.  On non-blocking sockets you have to
> expect that connect() returns before being connected.  Just because
> other systems are so quick figuring out that nothing is listening on
> the other side, this doesn't invalidate the EINPROGRESS response under,
> well, slower conditions.
Well, in my test-case, /tmp/.afunix is a dead socket, connect must return
ECONNREFUSED but not EINPROGRESS, is it so?

> 
> And, btw., SUSv3 doesn't say a word that EINPROGRESS is not a valid
> response for AF_LOCAL sockets.
Yea, is it a valid response for *alive* AF_LOCAL sockets?

Please consider that, the test code i took from linc-1.0.1 (cleanup.c), because of
that, linc-cleanup-sockets works incorrect.

> Corinna
> 
Thanks.




--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

- Raw text -