lwIP - A Lightweight TCP/IP stack - Bugs: bug #12592, write in CLOSE_WAIT possible but...
You are not allowed to post comments on this tracker with your current authentication level.
bug #12592: write in CLOSE_WAIT possible but should return ESHUTDOWN
Submitter: | None | ||
Submitted: | Thu 07 Apr 2005 11:43:16 AM UTC | ||
Category: | TCP | Severity: | 2 - Minor |
Item Group: | Faulty Behaviour | Status: | Invalid |
Privacy: | Public | Assigned to: | kieranm |
Open/Closed: | Closed | Planned Release: | None |
lwIP version: | None |
Jump to the original submission
Wed 28 Feb 2007 09:41:15 PM UTC, comment #6: |
Jonathan Larmour <jifl> |
Wed 28 Feb 2007 09:30:11 AM UTC, comment #5: I agree that you should be able to send data without an error in CLOSE_WAIT. Should have spotted that myself - I did say it wasn't clear!
|
Kieran Mansley <kieranm> |
Wed 28 Feb 2007 08:11:09 AM UTC, comment #4: I have a question about the issue.
|
dupengbo <dupengbo> |
Mon 26 Feb 2007 02:58:41 PM UTC, comment #3: Thanks for investigating Jonathan, I'll make the change you suggest. |
Kieran Mansley <kieranm> |
Mon 26 Feb 2007 02:45:29 PM UTC, comment #2: It wasn't me that posted this bug, but I can see what's proposed. If writing to a TCP connection already in the CLOSE_WAIT state, ERR_CONN is returned, equivalent to ENOTCONN in BSD sockets. The patch wants to return ESHUTDOWN instead (although the patch is incorrect and should return ERR_CLSD if it wants that behaviour) in that case. This would indeed be the strictly correct error code.
|
Jonathan Larmour <jifl> |
Mon 26 Feb 2007 01:12:49 PM UTC, comment #1: It's not clear from this bug report what the problem is, or what fix you are suggesting. Could you provide more information? |
Kieran Mansley <kieranm> |
Thu 07 Apr 2005 11:43:16 AM UTC, original submission:
Possible work around tcp_out.c:
|
Anonymous |
No files currently attached
Depends on the following items: None found
Items that depend on this one: None found
There are 0 votes so far. Votes easily highlight which items people would like to see resolved in priority, independently of the priority of the item set by tracker managers.
Follow 5 latest changes.
Date | Changed by | Updated Field | Previous Value | => | Replaced by |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2007-02-28 | kieranm | Status | Need Info | Invalid | |
Open/Closed | Open | Closed | |||
2007-02-26 | kieranm | Assigned to | None | kieranm | |
2007-02-26 | kieranm | Severity | 3 - Normal | 2 - Minor | |
Status | None | Need Info |
Powered by Savane 3.13-d3ae.
Corresponding source code
Sorry, my bad for the confusion. I got mixed up between CLOSE_WAIT and FIN_WAIT.