On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 02:35:49PM -0400, Ted Unangst wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 17:39, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> > On 2013/03/19 18:26, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> >> On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 04:00:46PM +0100, Martin Pelikan wrote:
> >>
> >> > > wfd is stdin, so doing a shutdown on it will mostly be a noop, right?
> >> >
> >> > Of course you're right. I was so focused on finding the bug I didn't
> >> > look above what the fd is :-(
> >> >
> >> > Are you okay with removing this particular shutdown(2) line?
> >>
> >> Yes, but it would even be better if there would be an option to get
> >> the shutdown on EOF behaviour back.
> >>
> >> Some servers wait until they see the shutdown from the client to finish
> >> their work.
> >>
> >> -Otto
> >>
> >
> > OK?
>
> woah. Can somebody explain, using very small words, exactly what the
> problem is?
>
> >From reading the ubuntu bug report, their problem comes from adding a
> -q flag very similar to the proposed -N flag, and *that's* what broke.
> Unmodified netcat does not have whatever bug they're talking about.
>
> Why are we adding a flag that the ubuntu bug report is requesting be
> reverted?
>
> For that matter, if this is a real problem, why are we using -N and
> not -q? This seems like a wholly gratuitous difference for no benefit.
The testcase in the ubuntu bugreport is not really good.
Try
$ echo 129.128.5.194 | nc whois.ripe.net 43
Our netcat does have a problem. It makes sense to default to the gnu
netcat behaviour, which does not shutdown on EOF on stdin.
-Otto
