On 8/22/24 1:17 PM, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 at 08:42, Ruediger Pluem <rpl...@apache.org
> <mailto:rpl...@apache.org>> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 8/21/24 9:30 AM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 8/20/24 6:15 PM, Ivan Zhakov via dev wrote:
> >> On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 at 17:40, Ruediger Pluem <rpl...@apache.org
> <mailto:rpl...@apache.org> <mailto:rpl...@apache.org
> <mailto:rpl...@apache.org>>> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 8/20/24 3:45 PM, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
> >> > On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 at 14:18, Ivan Zhakov <i...@apache.org
> <mailto:i...@apache.org> <mailto:i...@apache.org
> <mailto:i...@apache.org>> <mailto:i...@apache.org <mailto:i...@apache.org>
> >> <mailto:i...@apache.org <mailto:i...@apache.org>>>> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 at 13:47, Ruediger Pluem
> <rpl...@apache.org <mailto:rpl...@apache.org>
> <mailto:rpl...@apache.org <mailto:rpl...@apache.org>>
> <mailto:rpl...@apache.org <mailto:rpl...@apache.org>
> >> <mailto:rpl...@apache.org <mailto:rpl...@apache.org>>>> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On 8/20/24 1:32 PM, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
> >> > > On Fri, 9 Aug 2024 at 08:29, Ruediger Pluem
> <rpl...@apache.org <mailto:rpl...@apache.org>
> <mailto:rpl...@apache.org <mailto:rpl...@apache.org>>
> >> <mailto:rpl...@apache.org <mailto:rpl...@apache.org>
> <mailto:rpl...@apache.org <mailto:rpl...@apache.org>>>
> <mailto:rpl...@apache.org <mailto:rpl...@apache.org>
> <mailto:rpl...@apache.org <mailto:rpl...@apache.org>>
> >> > <mailto:rpl...@apache.org <mailto:rpl...@apache.org>
> <mailto:rpl...@apache.org <mailto:rpl...@apache.org>>>>>
> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > Any APR windows guy on the below?
> >> > >
> >> > > On Windows apr_socket_connect(cd, sa) returns
> APR_SUCCESS despite being non blocking.
> >> > > This doesn't sound correct. Can someone have a
> look on the patch?
> >> > >
> >> > > Which patch do you mean r1918412 or something else?
> >> >
> >> > The patch below in this mail.
> >> >
> >> > Ok, thanks!
> >> >
> >> > So what is happening in my environment in
> testsock:test_get_addr() on Windows:
> >> > 1. Call to apr_socket_create() sets timeout to -1. This
> means "block indefinitely" as far as I understand. See
> >> > apr_socket_wait() implementation as an example.
> >> > 2. Call to apr_socket_opt_set(APR_SO_NONBLOCK, 1) calls
> ioctlsocket(FIONBIO, 1) and DOES NOT update sock->timeout
> >> > 3. connect() returns WSAEWOULDBLOCK
> >> > 4. At this time sock->timeout == -1
> >> >
> >> > I am not an expert in apr_socket_t implementation. But I see
> the following:
> >> > 1. apr_socket_t has separate timeout and non-blocking flags.
> >> > 2. apr_socket_opt_set() doesn't change sock->timeout on Unix
> >> >
> <https://github.com/apache/apr/blob/cd3698c985708920d9369eb5db98070c0d78e2aa/network_io/unix/sockopt.c#L182>
> and
> Windows
> >> >
> <https://github.com/apache/apr/blob/cd3698c985708920d9369eb5db98070c0d78e2aa/network_io/win32/sockopt.c#L156>.
> >> > 3. apr_socket_timeout() updates timeout AND non-blocking on
> Unix
> >> >
> <https://github.com/apache/apr/blob/cd3698c985708920d9369eb5db98070c0d78e2aa/network_io/unix/sockopt.c#L75>
> and
> Windows
> >> >
> <https://github.com/apache/apr/blob/cd3698c985708920d9369eb5db98070c0d78e2aa/network_io/win32/sockopt.c#L53>.
> >> >
> >> > I don't know what was the idea of having separate timeout
> value and non-blocking flag, but the proposed patch
> doesn't seem
> >> > correct.
> >> >
> >> > Easy solution is to use apr_socket_timeout() in the test:
> >> > [[[
> >> > Index: test/testsock.c
> >> >
> ===================================================================
> >> > --- test/testsock.c (revision 1920036)
> >> > +++ test/testsock.c (working copy)
> >> > @@ -420,7 +420,7 @@
> >> > APR_ASSERT_SUCCESS(tc, "create client socket", rv);
> >> >
> >> > APR_ASSERT_SUCCESS(tc, "enable non-block mode",
> >> > - apr_socket_opt_set(cd,
> APR_SO_NONBLOCK, 1));
> >> > + apr_socket_timeout_set(cd, 0));
> >> >
> >> > /* It is valid for a connect() on a socket with
> NONBLOCK set to
> >> > * succeed (if the connection can be established
> synchronously),
> >> >
> >> > ]]]
> >> >
> >> > With this patch test starts failing with the following error:
> >> > [[[
> >> > Message:
> >> > Line 471: expected <000001BEF3EBD028>, but saw
> <000001BEF3EA13C8>
> >> >
> >> > Stack Trace:
> >> > testsock line 675
> >> > ]]
> >> >
> >> > Is it expected?
> >> >
> >> > I hope this helps.
> >> >
> >> > I fixed the issue with the result lifetime of
> apr_socket_addr_get() in r1920061 <https://svn.apache.org/r1920061>.
> >>
> >> Thanks. Hence my patch is fine from your point of view?
> >>
> >> As far as I understand the idea about apr_socket_t timeout and
> non-blocking flag the proposed patch with change condition to
> >> `sock->timeout <= 0` is not correct: negative timeout means infinite
> timeout. So blocking apr_socket_t should wait
> indefinitely. A
> >> potential solution would be to check for `apr_is_option_set(sock,
> APR_SO_NONBLOCK)` but I am not sure about this.
> >
> > Call me stubborn, but with this approach we have a different behavior
> of apr_socket_connect between Unix and Windows.
> > If the socket is set to non blocking via apr_is_option_set(sock,
> APR_SO_NONBLOCK) but the timeout is still -1 we have the
> > following results:
> >
> > On Unix: Return APR_EINPROGRESS
> > On Windows: Return APR_SUCCESS
> >
> > If you think that the behavior on Windows is correct, then we should
> change it on Unix to match the one on Windows.
> > I have a hard time finding an argument why Unix and Windows should
> behave differently in the same situation.
>
> I would understand if this different behavior should be kept for 1.7 or
> even 1.8. But I think in trunk they should behave the the
> same.
>
> I agree that Unix and Windows behavior should align, but the situation is
> complicated by the differences in how
> apr_socket_timeout_set() and apr_socket_opt_set(sock, APR_SO_NONBLOCK) work
> on these platforms. So if we're to change that, I
> think that both apr_socket_connect() and apr_socket_timeout_set() would need
> to be addressed together.
>
> I've attached a preliminary analysis of the current behavior. I may be able
> to take a further look at this, although I can't
> promise it.
Thanks for generating this overview. This looks kind of nasty and messy. This
should be cleaned up such that we have the same
behavior.
>
> As for 1.7.x, I think that the recent fixes (r1920061, r1920070) should
> probably be enough for now.
Fair enough :-)
Regards
Rüdiger
