Can anyone tell me why, exactly, we shouldn't remove bound AF_LOCAL
sockets from the filesystem on last close?
Well, I wouldn't expect it to be easy; it means that every AF_LOCAL
socket needs to keep track of its directory,name pair. This leaves
open the question of what to do if it has
But I agree that if leaving the sockets around permits no interesting
feature whatsoever (i.e. it doesn't even serve for SO_REUSEADDR),
I've been trying to think of any such feature since this discussion
started. So far i've failed.
it very well could be a design or implementation bug,
I
A reason might be that every other system behaves the same way and
being different will just lead to non-portable code.
Non-portable *how*? What exactly would happen?
I don't know, and if you've got an argument that code written for
either behavior will be ok both places I don't have a
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 10:55:51PM -0400, Thor Simon wrote:
Can anyone tell me why, exactly, we shouldn't remove bound AF_LOCAL
sockets from the filesystem on last close?
I think of a reason for that as they are completely useless with
a process attached to them anyway.
Kind regards
Date:Thu, 24 Jun 2010 22:55:51 -0400
From:Thor Simon t...@coyotepoint.com
Message-ID: 20100625025551.ga6...@coyotepoint.com
| Can anyone tell me why, exactly, we shouldn't remove bound AF_LOCAL
| sockets from the filesystem on last close?
I suspect the original
Can anyone tell me why, exactly, we shouldn't remove bound AF_LOCAL
sockets from the filesystem on last close? The following test program
produces second socket bind failed on every system I've tested it on,
and seems to cover the only possible use case for this feature...
Have you
On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 22:55:51 -0400
Thor Simon t...@coyotepoint.com wrote:
Can anyone tell me why, exactly, we shouldn't remove bound AF_LOCAL
sockets from the filesystem on last close? The following test program
produces second socket bind failed on every system I've tested it on,
and seems
On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 14:51:45 +0200
Joerg Sonnenberger jo...@britannica.bec.de wrote:
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 10:55:51PM -0400, Thor Simon wrote:
Can anyone tell me why, exactly, we shouldn't remove bound AF_LOCAL
sockets from the filesystem on last close?
If you want to do that, wouldn't
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 08:47:49AM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
Can anyone tell me why, exactly, we shouldn't remove bound AF_LOCAL
sockets from the filesystem on last close? The following test program
produces second socket bind failed on every system I've tested it on,
and seems to
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 08:59:18AM -0400, Matthew Mondor wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 22:55:51 -0400
Thor Simon t...@coyotepoint.com wrote:
Can anyone tell me why, exactly, we shouldn't remove bound AF_LOCAL
sockets from the filesystem on last close? The following test program
produces
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 02:51:45PM +0200, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 10:55:51PM -0400, Thor Simon wrote:
Can anyone tell me why, exactly, we shouldn't remove bound AF_LOCAL
sockets from the filesystem on last close?
If you want to do that, wouldn't it be easier to
On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 09:19:03 -0400
Thor Simon t...@coyotepoint.com wrote:
I think this is (always has been) a considerable blind spot on the part
of BSD partisans. Sure, we're happy to gripe about persistent SysV IPC
objects every time we have to remember how to use ipcrm, but bound AF_UNIX
On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 08:59:18 -0400
Matthew Mondor mm_li...@pulsar-zone.net wrote:
However, I wrote a small test program and realized that despite
SO_REUSEADDR this doesn't work, and indeed after checking the kernel
code SO_REUSEADDR is ignored in the AF_LOCAL unp_bind() code.
Out of
Thor Simon t...@coyotepoint.com writes:
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 08:47:49AM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
Can anyone tell me why, exactly, we shouldn't remove bound AF_LOCAL
sockets from the filesystem on last close? The following test program
produces second socket bind failed on every
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 09:32:40AM -0400, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 02:51:45PM +0200, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 10:55:51PM -0400, Thor Simon wrote:
Can anyone tell me why, exactly, we shouldn't remove bound AF_LOCAL
sockets from the
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 09:02:34AM -0400, Matthew Mondor wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 14:51:45 +0200
Joerg Sonnenberger jo...@britannica.bec.de wrote:
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 10:55:51PM -0400, Thor Simon wrote:
Can anyone tell me why, exactly, we shouldn't remove bound AF_LOCAL
sockets
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 10:06:41AM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
Have you looked at posix to see if it speaks to this? I don't think it
gets specific enough to say.
I can't actually find any discussion of this (dumb) behavior anywhere
but in the bind(2) manual page. However, it looks like
Can anyone tell me why, exactly, we shouldn't remove bound AF_LOCAL
sockets from the filesystem on last close? The following test program
produces second socket bind failed on every system I've tested it on,
and seems to cover the only possible use case for this feature...
#include sys/types.h
18 matches
Mail list logo
