On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 09:22:40AM +0000, Michael Deegan wrote: > It does not...because the socket continues to be at EOF. :P > > Doing "last LOOP" instead does work, but makes me wonder uncomfortably > whether this would result (under certain currently unspecified and > unreproducible circumstances) in the tail end of data from the other socket > to be forgotten, though I'm also mindful of the possibility of it being safe > to give up as soon as either side becomes unreadable. > > I feel that doing "$s->remove($_)" instead (a la the attached patch against > 1.7.10) would give the other socket a chance to finish more cleanly.
Michael, I have been thinking about this, in particular this thread: http://www.perlmonks.org/bare/?node_id=167036 shutdown(1) seems to be the best we can do to pass the EOF on. How does this patch work for you? Mark diff --git a/apt-cacher b/apt-cacher index 1317c25..069bad0 100755 --- a/apt-cacher +++ b/apt-cacher @@ -457,6 +457,13 @@ sub ssl_proxy { if(defined(my $num=sysread($_, my $buf,65536))) { local $SIG{PIPE} = sub {$cfg->{debug} && debug_message('Got SIGPIPE whilst proxying')}; # Catch disconnects/write failure my $writeto = (fileno($_)==fileno($ssl)?$con:$ssl); + unless ($num) { # EOF + my $h=$_->peerhost; + $cfg->{debug} && debug_message("Got EOF from $h"); + $writeto->shutdown(1); + $s->remove($_); + last; + } last LOOP if !defined(syswrite($writeto,$buf,$num)); $count += $num; } -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
