On Mon, Sep 02, 2024 at 09:20:21PM +1200, Thomas Munro wrote: > 2. If a Windows client tries to send() and gets an ECONNRESET/EPIPE > error, then the network stack seems to drop already received data, so > a following recv() will never see it. In other words, it depends on > whether the application-level protocol is strictly request/response > based, or has sequence points at which both ends might send(). AFAIK > the main consequence for real users is that FATAL recovery conflict, > idle termination, etc messages are not delivered to clients, leaving > just "server closed the connection unexpectedly".
> The new thought I had about the second category of problem is: if you > use asynchronous networking APIs, then the kernel *can't* throw your > data out, because it doesn't even have it. If the server's FATAL > message arrives before the client calls send(), then the data is > already written to user space memory and the I/O is marked as > complete. Good point. > just wanted to share this observation. Thanks for sharing that and the test program.
