Hello.
Is SO_NOSIGPIPE work?
It try to set on socket option SO_NOSIGPIPE but anyway process
received sigpipe.
Test case:
#include sys/types.h
#include sys/socket.h
#include netinet/in.h
#include signal.h
#define SERVER_PORT 8000
void
sigpipe(int signo __unused)
{
printf(SIGPIPE
Hi Anton,
On Thu, Mar 01, 2007 at 03:17:29PM +0300, Anton Yuzhaninov wrote:
Hello.
Is SO_NOSIGPIPE work?
It try to set on socket option SO_NOSIGPIPE but anyway process
received sigpipe.
It works, but only if you use send() instead of write().
Alternatively, you can control the behavior
Thursday, March 1, 2007, 6:29:42 PM, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
RE On Thu, Mar 01, 2007 at 03:17:29PM +0300, Anton Yuzhaninov wrote:
Is SO_NOSIGPIPE work?
It try to set on socket option SO_NOSIGPIPE but anyway process
received sigpipe.
RE It works, but only if you use send() instead of write().
Anton Yuzhaninov wrote:
RE It works, but only if you use send() instead of write().
RE Alternatively, you can control the behavior on a per
RE message basis, by passing the MSG_NOSIGNAL in the flags
RE argument to the send() call (without having to set a
RE socket option).
Thanks, with send()
Anton Yuzhaninov wrote:
Thanks, with send() it works fine.
I think it should be documented in setsockopt(2).
Try this patch. The comment doesn't reflect what the code does. SIGPIPE
may actually be getting queued twice in your case. It is most likely
that the process's main thread wasn't
Thursday, March 1, 2007, 8:34:50 PM, Bruce M. Simpson wrote:
BMS Anton Yuzhaninov wrote:
Thanks, with send() it works fine.
I think it should be documented in setsockopt(2).
BMS Try this patch. The comment doesn't reflect what the code does. SIGPIPE
BMS may actually be getting queued twice in
Anton Yuzhaninov wrote:
Works for me.
Committed, thanks for finding this bug.
BMS
___
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thursday, 1 March, 2007 at 17:34:50 +, Bruce M. Simpson wrote:
Anton Yuzhaninov wrote:
Thanks, with send() it works fine.
I think it should be documented in setsockopt(2).
Try this patch. The comment doesn't reflect what the code does. SIGPIPE
may actually be getting queued twice
N.J. Mann wrote:
Could this be why mail from cron doesn't work for me in 6.2? I got as
far as finding that cron receives a SIGPIPE while sending the mail
message to sendmail, but never worked out why. I ended up hacking cron
to ignore SIGPIPE and then ENOTIME to investigate further.
