[lkml]   [2004]   [Oct]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: UDP recvmsg blocks after select(), 2.6 bug?
Chris Friesen wrote:
> H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>>> H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>>>> The whole point is that it doesn't break the *documented* interface.
>> I'm talking about returning -1, EIO.
> Ah. By "it", I thought you meant the current performance optimizations,
> not the EIO. My apologies.
> I think returning EIO is suboptimal, as it is not an expected error
> value for recvmsg(). (It's not listed in the man pages for recvmsg() or
> ip.) It would certainly work for new apps, but probably not for many
> existing binaries.

POSIX specifies:

The recvmsg( ) function shall fail if:

[EAGAIN] or [EWOULDBLOCK] The socket's file descriptor is marked
O_NONBLOCK and no data is waiting to be received; or MSG_OOB is set and
no out-of-band data is available and either the socket s file descriptor
is marked O_NONBLOCK or the socket does not support blocking to await
out-of-band data.

[EBADF] The socket argument is not a valid open file descriptor.

[ECONNRESET] A connection was forcibly closed by a peer.

[EINTR] This function was interrupted by a signal before any data was

[EINVAL] The sum of the iov_len values overflows a ssize_t, or the
MSG_OOB flag is set 37371 and no out-of-band data is available.

[EMSGSIZE] The msg_iovlen member of the msghdr structure pointed to by
message is less 37373 than or equal to 0, or is greater than {IOV_MAX}.

[ENOTCONN] A receive is attempted on a connection-mode socket that is
not connected.

[ENOTSOCK] The socket argument does not refer to a socket.

[EOPNOTSUPP] The specified flags are not supported for this socket type.

[ETIMEDOUT] The connection timed out during connection establishment, or
due to a transmission timeout on active connection.

The recvmsg( ) function may fail if:

[EIO] An I/O error occurred while reading from or writing to the file

[ENOBUFS] Insufficient resources were available in the system to perform
the operation.

[ENOMEM] Insufficient memory was available to fulfill the request.

Since you didn't code to Linux, and didn't code to POSIX... what did you
code to?

> On the other hand, if you simply do the checksum verification at
> select() time for blocking sockets, then the existing binaries get
> exactly the behaviour they expect.

... unless the blocking changes. In which case you either have to do
work twice, or it might *never* happen. Not to mention the extra code

The performance overhead of checksumming is substantial; I have seen
some real horror examples of what happens when you do it badly.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:07    [W:0.081 / U:0.940 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site