X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:date:from:reply-to:message-id:to:subject
	:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type
	:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=default; b=dZpA760/l2oG5+3R
	SXtQjfFY8AuLV6rMlXOS4grmWKMn1Pdddl1iyAS5fl7wkBdnDvMryKlIDkQQblM2
	cOiidYXf+OpF3Ic5Pa7GjFuhgnulr+uaqKw5QG7Pp3eH5c1sGmtHG/eKMXIZlvOF
	W9vORWzQOwX7vfgGrt/kmRfrRUo=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:date:from:reply-to:message-id:to:subject
	:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type
	:content-transfer-encoding; s=default; bh=PEtkfUdzJyvPmmY6oQORM3
	fXBLM=; b=TB/DGiq0mtgOk43OG/Anzv+dbI7/7dW01OGWvWdq2f3mixLtymSZI9
	lkMyDznKukuAPMf0chtMVQV4XIsZhzLhHaprJg+p7qwVJdT85YTnzJ6JYl9XNE+a
	5AC4A59zqsYzePCNhlokeGDBfwTOUzq2A8MhfCLmcKsiojcXc9Egc=
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/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
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=3.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,FREEMAIL_FROM,KAM_BODY_URIBL_PCCC,KAM_FROM_URIBL_PCCC,KAM_THEBAT,RCVD_IN_JMF_BL,SPF_SOFTFAIL autolearn=no version=3.3.2
X-HELO: smtp.ht-systems.ru
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 02:47:00 +0300
From: Andrey Repin <anrdaemon AT yandex DOT ru>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Message-ID: <145631367.20150220024700@yandex.ru>
To: Thomas Wolff <towo AT towo DOT net>, cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Clearing O_NONBLOCK from a pipe may lose data
In-Reply-To: <54E660F1.3040509@towo.net>
References: <20150218220859 DOT 1e8f8b19 AT tukaani DOT org>   <20150219095147 DOT GC26084 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <54E660F1 DOT 3040509 AT towo DOT net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-IsSubscribed: yes

Greetings, Thomas Wolff!

> Am 19.02.2015 um 10:51 schrieb Corinna Vinschen:
>> On Feb 18 22:08, Lasse Collin wrote:
>>> (Please Cc me when replying, I'm not subscribed to the list.)
>>>
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> I suspect that there is a bug in Cygwin:
>>>
>>> 1. Create a pipe with both ends in blocking mode (O_NONBLOCK
>>>     is not set).
>>> 2. The writer sets its end to non-blocking mode.
>>> 3. The writer writes to the pipe.
>>> 4. The writer restores its end of the pipe to blocking mode
>>>     before the reader has read anything from the pipe.
>>> 5. The writer closes its end of the pipe.
>>> 6. The reader reads from the pipe in blocking mode. The last
>>>     bytes written by the writer never appear at the reader,
>>>     thus data is silently lost.
>>>
>>> Omitting the step 4 above makes the problem go away.
>> I can imagine.  A few years back, when changing the pipe code to
>> using overlapped IO, we stumbled over a problem in Windows.  When
>> closing an overlapped pipe while I/O is still ongoing, Windows
>> simply destroys the pipe buffers without flushing the data to the
>> reader.  This is not much of a problem for blocking IO, but it
>> obviously is for non-blocking.
>>
>> The workaround for this behaviour is this:  If the pipe is closed, and
>> this is the writing side of a nonblocking pipe, a background thread gets
>> started which keeps the overlapped structure open and continues to wait
>> for IO completion (i.e. the data has been sent to the reader).
>>
>> However, if you switch back to blocking before closing the pipe, the
>> aforementioned mechanism does not kick in.
> Could not "switching back to blocking" simply be handled like closing as 
> far as the waiting is concerned,
> thus effectively flushing the pipe buffer?

You can't "just flush" it, if the receiving end isn't reading from it.


--
WBR,
Andrey Repin (anrdaemon AT yandex DOT ru) 20.02.2015, <02:46>

Sorry for my terrible english...


--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple