On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 1:19 AM, <yla...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> New abort_socket_nonblocking() allows to reset connections when nonblocking is
> required and we can't do much about the connection anymore, nor want the
> system
> to linger on its own after close().
>
[]
>
> +static void abort_socket_nonblocking(apr_socket_t *csd)
> +{
> + apr_status_t rv;
> + apr_socket_timeout_set(csd, 0);
> +#if defined(SOL_SOCKET) && defined(SO_LINGER)
> + /* This socket is over now, and we don't want to block nor linger
> + * anymore, so reset it. A normal close could still linger in the
> + * system, while RST is fast, nonblocking, and what the peer will
> + * get if it sends us further data anyway.
> + */
> + {
> + apr_os_sock_t osd = -1;
> + struct linger opt;
> + opt.l_onoff = 1;
> + opt.l_linger = 0; /* zero timeout is RST */
> + apr_os_sock_get(&osd, csd);
> + setsockopt(osd, SOL_SOCKET, SO_LINGER, (void *)&opt, sizeof opt);
> + }
> +#endif
> + rv = apr_socket_close(csd);
> + if (rv != APR_SUCCESS) {
> + ap_log_error(APLOG_MARK, APLOG_ERR, rv, ap_server_conf,
> APLOGNO(00468)
> + "error closing socket");
> + AP_DEBUG_ASSERT(0);
> + }
> +}
This change may be disputable...
I wanted to:
1. avoid blocking in any case (we can't where this is called),
2. avoid issueing a nonblocking "normal" close() which lets the system handle
the burden of possibly leaking descriptors (until its own linger is done).
Objections?
