apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeff Trawick <traw...@attglobal.net>
Subject Re: [PATCH] Socket timeouts and APR_SO_NONBLOCK?
Date Fri, 30 May 2003 10:58:21 GMT
Jacob Lewallen wrote:
> Jeff Trawick wrote:
> 
>> Jacob Craig Lewallen wrote:
>>
>>
>> I assume that your app did
>>
>>   apr_socket_timeout_set(sock, 0)
>>
>> to clear the timeout?
> 
> 
>     Actually I am passing -1, which does "clear" the timeouts. 
> Unfortunately the socket is still non blocking. . .  If you look in 
> sockopt.c on line 133 you'll see a call to apr_is_option_set, checking 
> for APR_SO_NONBLOCK. My problem is, this never gets set when it DOES 
> make the socket non blocking in the first call to timeout_set and so the 
> socket is never returned to blocking even if you do pass -1. In other 
> words, on the first call on a blocking socket it'll check for NONBLOCK, 
> fail, and set the socket to be non blocking, but never set the 
> APR_SO_NONBLOCK flag to reflect this. Or am I just being dense?

No, you're not being dense.

To be honest, I thought your previous note was clear about the bug but 
then when I went to try it empirically I couldn't reproduce it.  Then I 
wondered if you had passed the right value to apr_socket_timeout_set() :)

Looking at things again, perhaps before injesting enough caffeine, it 
looks like there are other bogosities w.r.t. timeouts that perhaps hid 
the bug from me for my particular testcase.  I see various places where 
we think that sock->timeout != 0 means there is a timeout in place, when 
a check via apr_is_option_set(sock->netmask, APR_SO_TIMEOUT) is the 
proper thing to do.

I now see that your patch needs to be committed, but for the short term 
  I'd like to explore some other bogosities.

Thanks for hanging in there!


Mime
View raw message