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:to:subject:message-id:reply-to
	:references:mime-version:content-type:in-reply-to; q=dns; s=
	default; b=Zz5u7i5GYYf6pOZutbrpv8/9uPrKsYMdJ5lblXUIw+txQHcPikQ8W
	oXMTaO0aloWg3iYL8F+Tamk8Gg9vHk4a3HtVYlbYOq8hNUX8qifPNg6DJwsgYDIy
	IczBcFu53vz45ijBXsjZ8w4deOr4k+Od5dd7bRRCl5YFcf1gtpqFyA=
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2017 18:16:35 +0100
From: Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Hangs on connect to UNIX socket being listened on in the same process (was: Cygwin hanging in pselect)
Message-ID: <20170109171635.GB26337@calimero.vinschen.de>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <CAOTD34aMu6DLP-8kaRXZRoihGxW9Jusf1pDBeM3cTWeNRfLVWw AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <20170109141306 DOT GB843 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <CAOTD34b-h4WyYiUtA8sizN6riPe1YsDWdaypDNbODC71xv13UQ AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="wzJLGUyc3ArbnUjN"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAOTD34b-h4WyYiUtA8sizN6riPe1YsDWdaypDNbODC71xv13UQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.1 (2016-10-04)

--wzJLGUyc3ArbnUjN
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Jan  9 16:46, Erik Bray wrote:
> Hi Corinna,
>=20
> Thanks for the response.
>=20
> On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 3:13 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > Right.  It has to do with how connect/accept works on AF_LOCAL sockets.
> > The handshake doesn't work well for situations like yours, where the
> > same thread tries to connect and accept on the same socket.
>=20
> Actually I'm not entirely sure now that that's the issue, even
> considering that this has come up before.  Or at the very least,
> there's an additional issue.  I realized that when I tried separate
> client/server processes, in the server I had put an accept() call at
> the end so it would block there.  With the server waiting to accept a
> connection it succeeded.  However, when I replaced the accept() with a
> long sleep(), the client's connect() never returns.

That's because connect infinitely waits for the accept to reply the
second half of the handshake.

> IIUC the handshake can't succeed until and unless the server accepts a
> connection from the client.

This is exactly the underlying problem.  And interesting enough, even
though the handshake is in Cygwin since 2001, we never had a problem
with this until Christian started porting postfix in 2014!

> I almost wonder if the server side in this case
> shouldn't start up a thread to accept the af_local handshake, but you
> would know better.

No, I don't.  We discussed this issue briefly back in 2014, but as
you can see we don't have a solution for this border case yet.

Starting a thread may or may not work, but there are a couple of
use-cases to keep in mind (which I can't reproduce off the top of my head).
The old postfix cygwin-apps thread from 2014 might give you some idea.

> > This has been found a problem in porting postfix already and at the time
> > we added a patch to circumvent the problem.  Before calling connect, add
> > this:
> >
> >   setsockopt (sock_server, SOL_SOCKET, SO_PEERCRED, NULL, 0);
> >   setsockopt (sock_client, SOL_SOCKET, SO_PEERCRED, NULL, 0);
> >
> > This is, of course, a hack.  The problem here is that server and client
> > of a socket are independent of each other, and there's typically no
> > way to know which process created the server side unless you already
> > are connected.  Chicken/egg.
>=20
> I tried it and it worked, both in the single process and separate
> process examples.  I see now--this sets
> fhandler_socket::no_getpeerid=3Dtrue, so it doesn't have to do the
> handshake at all.

Right.  A better solution for the problem would be nice.  Ultimately
we want to check if the other side of the socket is actually a Cygwin
process which knows the secret, not a stray native Windows process
which accidentally hopped on the bandwagon, and we want to exchange
the credentials so a subsequent SO_PEERCRED call returns correct values.


Corinna

--=20
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Maintainer                 cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

--wzJLGUyc3ArbnUjN
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
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=KH1u
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--wzJLGUyc3ArbnUjN--