On 8/21/24 9:30 AM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
>
>
> On 8/20/24 6:15 PM, Ivan Zhakov via dev wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 at 17:40, Ruediger Pluem <rpl...@apache.org
>> <mailto:rpl...@apache.org>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 8/20/24 3:45 PM, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
>> > On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 at 14:18, Ivan Zhakov <i...@apache.org
>> <mailto:i...@apache.org> <mailto:i...@apache.org
>> <mailto:i...@apache.org>>> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 at 13:47, Ruediger Pluem <rpl...@apache.org
>> <mailto:rpl...@apache.org> <mailto:rpl...@apache.org
>> <mailto:rpl...@apache.org>>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On 8/20/24 1:32 PM, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
>> > > On Fri, 9 Aug 2024 at 08:29, Ruediger Pluem
>> <rpl...@apache.org <mailto:rpl...@apache.org>
>> <mailto:rpl...@apache.org <mailto:rpl...@apache.org>>
>> <mailto:rpl...@apache.org <mailto:rpl...@apache.org>
>> > <mailto:rpl...@apache.org <mailto:rpl...@apache.org>>>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Any APR windows guy on the below?
>> > >
>> > > On Windows apr_socket_connect(cd, sa) returns
>> APR_SUCCESS despite being non blocking.
>> > > This doesn't sound correct. Can someone have a look on
>> the patch?
>> > >
>> > > Which patch do you mean r1918412 or something else?
>> >
>> > The patch below in this mail.
>> >
>> > Ok, thanks!
>> >
>> > So what is happening in my environment in testsock:test_get_addr()
>> on Windows:
>> > 1. Call to apr_socket_create() sets timeout to -1. This means
>> "block indefinitely" as far as I understand. See
>> > apr_socket_wait() implementation as an example.
>> > 2. Call to apr_socket_opt_set(APR_SO_NONBLOCK, 1) calls
>> ioctlsocket(FIONBIO, 1) and DOES NOT update sock->timeout
>> > 3. connect() returns WSAEWOULDBLOCK
>> > 4. At this time sock->timeout == -1
>> >
>> > I am not an expert in apr_socket_t implementation. But I see the
>> following:
>> > 1. apr_socket_t has separate timeout and non-blocking flags.
>> > 2. apr_socket_opt_set() doesn't change sock->timeout on Unix
>> >
>> <https://github.com/apache/apr/blob/cd3698c985708920d9369eb5db98070c0d78e2aa/network_io/unix/sockopt.c#L182>
>> and Windows
>> >
>> <https://github.com/apache/apr/blob/cd3698c985708920d9369eb5db98070c0d78e2aa/network_io/win32/sockopt.c#L156>.
>> > 3. apr_socket_timeout() updates timeout AND non-blocking on Unix
>> >
>> <https://github.com/apache/apr/blob/cd3698c985708920d9369eb5db98070c0d78e2aa/network_io/unix/sockopt.c#L75>
>> and Windows
>> >
>> <https://github.com/apache/apr/blob/cd3698c985708920d9369eb5db98070c0d78e2aa/network_io/win32/sockopt.c#L53>.
>> >
>> > I don't know what was the idea of having separate timeout value
>> and non-blocking flag, but the proposed patch doesn't seem
>> > correct.
>> >
>> > Easy solution is to use apr_socket_timeout() in the test:
>> > [[[
>> > Index: test/testsock.c
>> > ===================================================================
>> > --- test/testsock.c (revision 1920036)
>> > +++ test/testsock.c (working copy)
>> > @@ -420,7 +420,7 @@
>> > APR_ASSERT_SUCCESS(tc, "create client socket", rv);
>> >
>> > APR_ASSERT_SUCCESS(tc, "enable non-block mode",
>> > - apr_socket_opt_set(cd, APR_SO_NONBLOCK,
>> 1));
>> > + apr_socket_timeout_set(cd, 0));
>> >
>> > /* It is valid for a connect() on a socket with NONBLOCK set
>> to
>> > * succeed (if the connection can be established
>> synchronously),
>> >
>> > ]]]
>> >
>> > With this patch test starts failing with the following error:
>> > [[[
>> > Message:
>> > Line 471: expected <000001BEF3EBD028>, but saw <000001BEF3EA13C8>
>> >
>> > Stack Trace:
>> > testsock line 675
>> > ]]
>> >
>> > Is it expected?
>> >
>> > I hope this helps.
>> >
>> > I fixed the issue with the result lifetime of apr_socket_addr_get() in
>> r1920061 <https://svn.apache.org/r1920061>.
>>
>> Thanks. Hence my patch is fine from your point of view?
>>
>> As far as I understand the idea about apr_socket_t timeout and non-blocking
>> flag the proposed patch with change condition to
>> `sock->timeout <= 0` is not correct: negative timeout means infinite
>> timeout. So blocking apr_socket_t should wait indefinitely. A
>> potential solution would be to check for `apr_is_option_set(sock,
>> APR_SO_NONBLOCK)` but I am not sure about this.
>
> Call me stubborn, but with this approach we have a different behavior of
> apr_socket_connect between Unix and Windows.
> If the socket is set to non blocking via apr_is_option_set(sock,
> APR_SO_NONBLOCK) but the timeout is still -1 we have the
> following results:
>
> On Unix: Return APR_EINPROGRESS
> On Windows: Return APR_SUCCESS
>
> If you think that the behavior on Windows is correct, then we should change
> it on Unix to match the one on Windows.
> I have a hard time finding an argument why Unix and Windows should behave
> differently in the same situation.
I would understand if this different behavior should be kept for 1.7 or even
1.8. But I think in trunk they should behave the the
same.
Regards
Rüdiger
