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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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/