Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 09:57:59 -0600 From: Jonathan Lemon <jlemon@flugsvamp.com> To: Wietse Venema <wietse@porcupine.org> Cc: Jonathan Lemon <jlemon@flugsvamp.com>, itojun@iijlab.net, Arjan.deVet@adv.iae.nl, net@freebsd.org, postfix-users@postfix.org Subject: Re: [itojun@iijlab.net: accept(2) behavior with tcp RST right after handshake] Message-ID: <20010308095759.S41963@prism.flugsvamp.com> In-Reply-To: <20010308153817.25296BC06D@spike.porcupine.org> References: <20010307220605.Q41963@prism.flugsvamp.com> <20010308153817.25296BC06D@spike.porcupine.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Mar 08, 2001 at 10:38:17AM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote: > If the result of connect() write() close() depends on whether > accept() happens after or before close(), then the behavior is > broken. The client has received a successful return from write() > and close(). The system is not supposed to lose the data, period. What you seem to be missing here is that the behavior described above is ONLY specific to UNIX-DOMAIN sockets. The description above is generally (but not always) true for the TCP/IP protocol. Data CAN be lost if the TCP connection is RST. It has nothing to do with the ordering of accept() with respect to close(). -- Jonathan To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010308095759.S41963>