Thor Simon <tls%coyotepoint.com@localhost> 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 system I've tested it on, >> and seems to cover the only possible use case for this "feature"... >> >> Have you looked at posix to see if it speaks to this? I don't think it >> gets specific enough to say. >> >> 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 problem with it. The only thing I can think of is that code that does an explicit unlink and checks for error on the unlink may complain, which is pretty mild. > 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 didn't mean that at all. It was just a cost of change vs cost of bug comment.
Description: PGP signature