Re: why not remove AF_LOCAL sockets on last close?

[Matthew Mondor <mm_lists%pulsar-zone.net@localhost>]

On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 09:19:03 -0400
Thor Simon <tls%coyotepoint.com@localhost> 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
> sockets have the same issue, and we just ignore it.

I don't think most people have trouble with SysV IPC, considering those
persistent resources were often used by short lived, but frequently used
commands/processes, utilising both the permissions and persistent
resources features (and NetBSD allows the admin to set the limit of the
various SysV resources with accuracy); admitedly we can now do the
same using files, mmap and advisory locks, though.

But I agree that if leaving the sockets around permits no interesting
feature whatsoever (i.e. it doesn't even serve for SO_REUSEADDR), it
very well could be a design or implementation bug, even if common
software already explicitely unlink AF_LOCAL sockets to account for
this issue...
-- 
Matt