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>> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 at 13:47, Ruediger Pluem <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>>> 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?
Regards
Rüdiger
