[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PROTON-2748?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17759653#comment-17759653
]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on PROTON-2748:
----------------------------------------
astitcher commented on code in PR #402:
URL: https://github.com/apache/qpid-proton/pull/402#discussion_r1307634731
##########
c/src/proactor/epoll_raw_connection.c:
##########
@@ -304,7 +305,7 @@ void pn_raw_connection_write_close(pn_raw_connection_t *rc)
{
pni_raw_write_close(rc);
}
-static pn_event_t *pni_raw_batch_next(pn_event_batch_t *batch) {
+static pn_event_t *pni_epoll_raw_batch_next(pn_event_batch_t *batch, bool
peek_only) {
Review Comment:
rename this: pni_raw_batch_next_common() or pni_raw_batch_next_or_peek():
Ading epoll to the name doesn't communicate anything useful about the
purpose of this function.
##########
c/src/proactor/epoll_raw_connection.c:
##########
@@ -318,12 +319,18 @@ static pn_event_t *pni_raw_batch_next(pn_event_batch_t
*batch) {
unlock(&rc->task.mutex);
if (waking) pni_raw_wake(raw);
- pn_event_t *e = pni_raw_event_next(raw);
- if (!e || pn_event_type(e) == PN_RAW_CONNECTION_DISCONNECTED)
- rc->batch_empty = true;
Review Comment:
Where did this logic go? It seems no longer to be anywhere. Is it no longer
needed? Specifically the check against the disconnected event.
##########
c/src/proactor/raw_connection.c:
##########
@@ -721,6 +723,14 @@ pn_event_t *pni_raw_event_next(pn_raw_connection_t *conn) {
} while (true);
}
+pn_event_t *pni_raw_event_next(pn_raw_connection_t *conn) {
+ return pni_get_next_raw_event(conn, false);
+}
+
+pn_event_t *pni_raw_event_peek(pn_raw_connection_t *conn) {
+ return pni_get_next_raw_event(conn, true);
+}
+
Review Comment:
I think I would refactor pni_raw_event_next differently:
* Refactor the event generating if chain into a separate function that is
called by ...next() and ...peek() (or if you follow my earlier suggestion
...has_events()
* Then wrap that with pn_collector_next/peek logic.
Just in case it's not clear the do ... while (true) is a bit of a red
herring and somewhat bad coding on my part in that there is never more than one
effective pass through the loop. There can be 2 but that if only if there was
no initial event. So it make more sense really to separate out the event
generating logic.
Hope that is clear enough.
##########
c/src/proactor/epoll_raw_connection.c:
##########
@@ -408,32 +415,41 @@ pn_event_batch_t *pni_raw_connection_process(task_t *t,
uint32_t io_events, bool
}
unlock(&rc->task.mutex);
- if (events & EPOLLIN) pni_raw_read(&rc->raw_connection, fd, rcv, set_error);
- if (events & EPOLLOUT) pni_raw_write(&rc->raw_connection, fd, snd,
set_error);
- rc->batch_empty = false;
+ if (rc->connected) {
Review Comment:
I don't think you need this condition (which is why it wasn't present
previously) - if you get here without returning already you must be connected.
##########
c/src/proactor/epoll_raw_connection.c:
##########
@@ -408,32 +415,41 @@ pn_event_batch_t *pni_raw_connection_process(task_t *t,
uint32_t io_events, bool
}
unlock(&rc->task.mutex);
- if (events & EPOLLIN) pni_raw_read(&rc->raw_connection, fd, rcv, set_error);
- if (events & EPOLLOUT) pni_raw_write(&rc->raw_connection, fd, snd,
set_error);
- rc->batch_empty = false;
+ if (rc->connected) {
+ if (events & EPOLLERR) {
+ // Read and write sides closed via RST. Tear down immediately.
+ int soerr;
+ socklen_t soerrlen = sizeof(soerr);
+ int ec = getsockopt(fd, SOL_SOCKET, SO_ERROR, &soerr, &soerrlen);
+ if (ec == 0 && soerr) {
+ psocket_error(rc, soerr, "async disconnect");
+ }
+ pni_raw_async_disconnect(&rc->raw_connection);
+ } else if (events & EPOLLHUP) {
Review Comment:
The style of this function is early return. So please change this to have a
return with no 'else if' if that is possible - I don't understand enough of
this logic to see if you could get EPOLLERR as well as EPOLLIN, EPOLLOUT or
EPOLLRDHUP at the same time with a useful action of reading or writing, but it
seems unlikely to me.
And if this change is possible it lowers the cognitive load (and
indentation) of the function.
##########
c/src/proactor/epoll_raw_connection.c:
##########
@@ -318,12 +319,18 @@ static pn_event_t *pni_raw_batch_next(pn_event_batch_t
*batch) {
unlock(&rc->task.mutex);
if (waking) pni_raw_wake(raw);
- pn_event_t *e = pni_raw_event_next(raw);
- if (!e || pn_event_type(e) == PN_RAW_CONNECTION_DISCONNECTED)
- rc->batch_empty = true;
+ pn_event_t *e = peek_only ? pni_raw_event_peek(raw) :
pni_raw_event_next(raw);
return e;
}
+static pn_event_t *pni_raw_batch_next(pn_event_batch_t *batch) {
+ return pni_epoll_raw_batch_next(batch, false);
+}
+
+static pn_event_t *pni_raw_batch_peek(pn_event_batch_t *batch) {
+ return pni_epoll_raw_batch_next(batch, true);
+}
Review Comment:
Are you sure you want to introduce a peek operation? This is only ever used
to find out whether there is an outstanding event so why not just introduce an
operation `bool pni_raw_batch_has_events()`?
##########
c/src/proactor/raw_connection-internal.h:
##########
@@ -134,9 +134,11 @@ void pni_raw_write_close(pn_raw_connection_t *conn);
void pni_raw_read(pn_raw_connection_t *conn, int sock, long (*recv)(int,
void*, size_t), void (*set_error)(pn_raw_connection_t *, const char *, int));
void pni_raw_write(pn_raw_connection_t *conn, int sock, long (*send)(int,
const void*, size_t), void (*set_error)(pn_raw_connection_t *, const char *,
int));
void pni_raw_process_shutdown(pn_raw_connection_t *conn, int sock, int
(*shutdown_rd)(int), int (*shutdown_wr)(int));
+void pni_raw_async_disconnect(pn_raw_connection_t *conn);
Review Comment:
As this is a new event going to the raw connection state machine maybe there
should be a new test for this event in raw_connection_test.
##########
c/src/proactor/epoll_raw_connection.c:
##########
@@ -442,24 +458,31 @@ void pni_raw_connection_done(praw_connection_t *rc) {
// The task may be in the ready state even if we've got no raw connection
// wakes outstanding because we dealt with it already in pni_raw_batch_next()
notify = (pni_task_wake_pending(&rc->task) || have_event) &&
schedule(&rc->task);
- ready = rc->task.ready;
+ ready = rc->task.ready; // No need to poll. Already scheduled.
unlock(&rc->task.mutex);
- pn_raw_connection_t *raw = &rc->raw_connection;
- int fd = rc->psocket.epoll_io.fd;
- pni_raw_process_shutdown(raw, fd, shutr, shutw);
- int wanted =
- (pni_raw_can_read(raw) ? EPOLLIN : 0) |
- (pni_raw_can_write(raw) ? EPOLLOUT : 0);
- if (wanted) {
- rc->psocket.epoll_io.wanted = wanted;
- rearm_polling(&rc->psocket.epoll_io, p->epollfd); // TODO: check for error
+ bool finished_disconnect = raw->state==conn_fini && !ready &&
!raw->disconnectpending;
+ if (finished_disconnect) {
+ // If we're closed and we've sent the disconnect then close
+ pni_raw_finalize(raw);
+ praw_connection_cleanup(rc);
+ } else if (ready) {
+ // Already scheduled to run. Skip poll. Remember if we want a read.
+ rc->read_check = pni_raw_can_read(raw);
+ } else if (!rc->connected) {
+ // Connect logic has already armed the socket.
} else {
- bool finished_disconnect = raw->state==conn_fini && !ready &&
!raw->disconnectpending;
- if (finished_disconnect) {
- // If we're closed and we've sent the disconnect then close
- pni_raw_finalize(raw);
- praw_connection_cleanup(rc);
+ // Must poll for iO.
Review Comment:
typo
> Raw connections do not always complete close operations
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: PROTON-2748
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PROTON-2748
> Project: Qpid Proton
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: proton-c
> Affects Versions: proton-c-0.39.0
> Environment: linux epoll
> Reporter: Clifford Jansen
> Assignee: Clifford Jansen
> Priority: Major
> Attachments: pn2748.patch
>
>
> The Proton raw_connection_t currently requires cooperation from the
> application layer to complete a close. There is a baked in assumption that
> the application will always eventually provide a read buffer. A second
> assumption is that the peer (not necessarily a Proton raw connection) will
> detect a read close on its side, and do a graceful close of it's write side
> "soon".
> These incorrect assumptions can leave the raw connection in a hung state
> waiting for non-existent wind up activity by the application or peer,
> respectively.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@qpid.apache.org
