lwIP - A Lightweight TCP/IP stack - Bugs: bug #9455, The sockets API does not correctly...
You are not allowed to post comments on this tracker with your current authentication level.
bug #9455: The sockets API does not correctly inform a process that a RST has been received
Submitter: | Kieran Mansley <kieranm> | ||
Submitted: | Fri 25 Jun 2004 02:28:22 PM UTC | ||
Category: | sockets/netconn | Severity: | 3 - Normal |
Item Group: | Faulty Behaviour | Status: | Invalid |
Privacy: | Public | Assigned to: | None |
Open/Closed: | Closed | Planned Release: | None |
lwIP version: | None |
Jump to the original submission
Fri 20 Apr 2007 07:57:06 AM UTC, comment #7: |
Kieran Mansley <kieranm> |
Thu 19 Apr 2007 04:56:06 PM UTC, comment #6: Ok for me to close it as invalid... |
Frédéric Bernon <fbernon> |
Thu 19 Apr 2007 11:29:54 AM UTC, comment #5:
|
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Tue 17 Apr 2007 02:35:37 PM UTC, comment #4: Frederic's point was that sockets.c already returns ECONNRESET for ERR_RST. As far as I know, this is what all other systems do in the same situation, and so is a better error code than EPIPE.
|
Jonathan Larmour <jifl> |
Tue 17 Apr 2007 01:26:54 PM UTC, comment #3: (I'm referring to the explanation given in http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/000095399/functions/send.html)
|
Simon Goldschmidt <goldsimon> |
Tue 17 Apr 2007 01:09:59 PM UTC, comment #2: Is something done on that? Actually, if we got a ERR_RST, even with only send, sockets api will returns ECONNRESET:
|
Frédéric Bernon <fbernon> |
Mon 26 Feb 2007 03:09:41 PM UTC, comment #1: It's going to be tricky to fix this in a portable way as signals aren't terribly portable.
|
Kieran Mansley <kieranm> |
Fri 25 Jun 2004 02:28:22 PM UTC, original submission:
If a process is only using send()/write() etc rather than any recv()/read() calls, it will not learn that a connection has been closed and a FIN/RST received.
|
Kieran Mansley <kieranm> |
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 2 latest changes.
Date | Changed by | Updated Field | Previous Value | => | Replaced by |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2007-04-20 | kieranm | Status | None | Invalid | |
Open/Closed | Open | Closed |
Powered by Savane 3.13-758e.
Corresponding source code
OK.
To summarise, we think the error code returned is currently correct, and we're not going to bother with sending signals.