httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <>
Subject Re: FIN_WAIT_2
Date Sat, 01 Feb 1997 16:16:24 GMT
Ben Laurie wrote:
> OK, so I've woken up now. I've just checked, and it would seem that _only_
> A/UX disables lingering_close(). But I thought our decision last time round
> was to only enable it when absolutely necessary? What happened?

Well, that's what I always thought... That lingering_close() was
to be used with those systems that needed that sort of
effect and whose SO_LINGER was very buggy (ie: SysV4). However,
it become the default mode for everyone, except A/UX, which
had real troubles with the code (still does).

However, it's sounding now like people are saying that unless
you use lingering_close(), that your implementation is almost
non-compliant. So I am very confused...

Hacking around A/UX's BNET module (it's tcp/ip stack) it
looks like it does implement a SO_LINGER almost by default...
It seems to go thru the motions of, when closing a socket,
closing off out, draining input and final closing. This
may be way A/UX responds so nastily to lingering_close.
One good thing has come out of this, though,... adbing around
BNET indicates that A/UX is resistant to the PingOfDeath :)

      Jim Jagielski            |       jaguNET Access Services           |
                  "Not the Craw... the CRAW!"

View raw message