tech-net archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: why not remove AF_LOCAL sockets on last close?

Thor Simon <> 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

Attachment: pgpFql67UPlTl.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index