Malversán added the comment:
That means the core code also works for SOCK_RAW sockets. It's only limited by
explicit socket type checks at a higher level.
As a curious note (not related to the issue), I'm also using the SOCK_SEQPACKET
connection created with BaseEventLoop to access a custom
Malversán added the comment:
I agree. Your question about potential message size overflow should be tested
(either for recv() and recvmsg()).
Could you please link the resource where you found the recommendation of using
recvmsg() over recv() for SOCK_SEQ_PACKET
Malversán added the comment:
In my scenario that buffer overrun never happens, maybe because I use messages
that are not big enough to overflow the default recv() buffer size.
But I think I can confirm that multiple messages are never received in an
atomic read, even if they are being issued
Malversán added the comment:
I do not have the answer about getting message boundaries at lower levels, but
from a high-level point of view SOCK_SEQ_PACKET gives atomic reads, with no
need to check for message boundaries yourself. Every time you read from a
SOCK_SEQ_PACKET socket you get
Malversán added the comment:
It has a certain logic to recommend recvmsg() in place of recv(), as
SOCK_SEQ_PACKET is characterized by transmitting entire messages only. But it
has to be noted that my current hack (described above) is working for
SOCK_SEQ_PACKET sockets with no modification
Malversán added the comment:
I'm sorry to read that. I thought the report could be enough to reach whoever
put that SOCK_STREAM-only checks and ask him why, when the library actually
works well also with other socket types.
If I ever find enough time to dive into the CPython repository I
Malversán added the comment:
In the past it took me two days to analyze asyncio code, to think up and
integrate the hack I´m using for this. But I´m not kidding when I tell you that
it took me two years to find a while to come here and properly report it. I'm
sorry, but I never have time
Malversán added the comment:
Certainly I have only tested it with SOCK_SEQPACKET, but apparently no one has
ever tested this before with a socket type other than SOCK_STREAM. It may be
worth to consider the possibility that the current asyncio implementation may
also support some other
New submission from Malversán :
Currently the BaseEventLoop class in asyncio has explicit checks to raise
ValueError when creating a connection if the socket argument has a type other
than SOCK_STREAM:
.create_connection()
.create_server()
This is also applicable for class
