[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-12487?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14964133#comment-14964133
]
Colin Patrick McCabe commented on HADOOP-12487:
-----------------------------------------------
bq. Your assertion is the Linux implementation is more useful is wrong. Calling
close() is the correct way to close a socket and force all other concurrent
uses of the socket to fail, which is exactly what happens on Solaris. If
close() causes all concurrent uses of a file descriptor to fail and the
application correctly detects that failure and discards the file descriptor
then there is no way the reuse scenario you describe can happen.
Consider the following scenario:
thread 1 calls close(fd = 234)
thread 2 calls socket() and gets a new socket with fd number 234.
thread 3 calls accept(fd = 234) on what it believes is the domain socket, but
actually it's thread #2's unrelated socket.
It is easy for close and accept to race here because we have no
synchronization. And of course every other domain socket operation can have
the same race, if you allow the possibility of closing a socket that is in use.
> DomainSocket.close() assumes incorrect Linux behaviour
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HADOOP-12487
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-12487
> Project: Hadoop Common
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Components: net
> Affects Versions: 2.7.1
> Environment: Linux Solaris
> Reporter: Alan Burlison
> Assignee: Alan Burlison
> Attachments: shutdown.c
>
>
> I'm getting a test failure in TestDomainSocket.java, in the
> testSocketAcceptAndClose test. That test creates a socket which one thread
> waits on in DomainSocket.accept() whilst a second thread sleeps for a short
> time before closing the same socket with DomainSocket.close().
> DomainSocket.close() first calls shutdown0() on the socket before closing
> close0() - both those are thin wrappers around the corresponding libc socket
> calls. DomainSocket.close() contains the following comment, explaining the
> logic involved:
> {code}
> // Calling shutdown on the socket will interrupt blocking system
> // calls like accept, write, and read that are going on in a
> // different thread.
> {code}
> Unfortunately that relies on non-standards-compliant Linux behaviour. I've
> written a simple C test case that replicates the scenario above:
> # ThreadA opens, binds, listens and accepts on a socket, waiting for
> connections.
> # Some time later ThreadB calls shutdown on the socket ThreadA is waiting in
> accept on.
> Here is what happens:
> On Linux, the shutdown call in ThreadB succeeds and the accept call in
> ThreadA returns with EINVAL.
> On Solaris, the shutdown call in ThreadB fails and returns ENOTCONN. ThreadA
> continues to wait in accept.
> Relevant POSIX manpages:
> http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/accept.html
> http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/shutdown.html
> The POSIX shutdown manpage says:
> "The shutdown() function shall cause all or part of a full-duplex connection
> on the socket associated with the file descriptor socket to be shut down."
> ...
> "\[ENOTCONN] The socket is not connected."
> Page 229 & 303 of "UNIX System V Network Programming" say:
> "shutdown can only be called on sockets that have been previously connected"
> "The socket \[passed to accept that] fd refers to does not participate in the
> connection. It remains available to receive further connect indications"
> That is pretty clear, sockets being waited on with accept are not connected
> by definition. Nor is it the accept socket connected when a client connects
> to it, it is the socket returned by accept that is connected to the client.
> Therefore the Solaris behaviour of failing the shutdown call is correct.
> In order to get the required behaviour of ThreadB causing ThreadA to exit the
> accept call with an error, the correct way is for ThreadB to call close on
> the socket that ThreadA is waiting on in accept.
> On Solaris, calling close in ThreadB succeeds, and the accept call in ThreadA
> fails and returns EBADF.
> On Linux, calling close in ThreadB succeeds but ThreadA continues to wait in
> accept until there is an incoming connection. That accept returns
> successfully. However subsequent accept calls on the same socket return EBADF.
> The Linux behaviour is fundamentally broken in three places:
> # Allowing shutdown to succeed on an unconnected socket is incorrect.
> # Returning a successful accept on a closed file descriptor is incorrect,
> especially as future accept calls on the same socket fail.
> # Once shutdown has been called on the socket, calling close on the socket
> fails with EBADF. That is incorrect, shutdown should just prevent further IO
> on the socket, it should not close it.
> The real issue though is that there's no single way of doing this that works
> on both Solaris and Linux, there will need to be platform-specific code in
> Hadoop to cater for the Linux brokenness.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
