Closing a socket.
cjohns at cybertec.com.au
Thu May 12 22:55:38 UTC 2005
Joel Sherrill <joel at OARcorp.com> wrote:
> This is the crux of the solution. The returned error status must get
> back to the blocked thread only using memory that has a lifespan longer
> tied to the thread. The TCB has a return status code but it is probably
> used back to the point at which the blocking call.
The hard part is the thread being blocked in the networking code rather
than just the RTEMS syscall code. If the blocking calls only originated
in the RTEMS syscall code it would be a lot simpler.
> Since it is blocked on an event, the object it is waiting on is not
> going to disappear with the deletion of the socket. Thus it doesn't
> get a hint there.
Are you saying by using the TCB you are ok as it has not been deleted ?
> My next thought would be that you would have to receive a "socket
> deleted" event. This would require adding an event to the set
> used. If you wake up because of the "deleted" event, the task
> is obligated to return an error without touching the pointer.
> The rtems_glue.c soconnsleep() and accept() code would have to
> honor this.
Again the error code is not checked in the networking code so ignored.
>> The rule I use is any thread that makes networking calls deletes itself.
>>> --> I believe the rtems syscalls should be changed to make it safe to
>>> close a socket on which another thread is blocking. This could be
>>> e.g., by letting soconnsleep/soconnwakeup use different events if the
>>> socket is being closed and propagating an error code that prevents
>>> the socket structure being from accessed from the RTEMS glue code
>>> in this case.
> Hmmm .. thinking before reading. :) Sounds like a good solution. :)
I am yet to figure out how you detect a socket is closed in the wake
calls. The only thing I have found is the socket state flags.
>> ... or block the close until the blocked thread has returned. I have
>> something which appears to be working for accept, and I am now looking
>> at the other calls.
> This would work but could be more complicated to get right.
I have it working for accept. The close thread blocks until the
accepting thread returns.
I have also fixed rtems_bsdnet_close by adding 'iop->data1 = NULL;'.
This stops close being entered.
>> Using another event, say SOCLOSED is a good idea. I may look at this.
>> Thanks for the idea.
> A working fix that is not TOO broad would be OK for 4.6.x.
The code is also in CVS HEAD so I am not sure I understand.
More information about the users