Workaround patch for MS CLOSE_WAIT bug
Tue Apr 16 07:54:00 GMT 2002
On Tue, Apr 16, 2002 at 09:06:32AM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>On Mon, Apr 15, 2002 at 12:19:49PM -0400, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
>> Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> > How can you second that 100% and then talk about how people have to
>> > change ther code to accomodate cygwin?
>> I second 100% that it's best to find a solution that avoids the MS
>> bug without requiring any change from Unix.
>> Meanwhile nobody "has to" do anything as a result of including
>> my proposal.
>> I hope this discussion will generate better approaches.
>I think there's only one approach which would allow applications
>to run without special Cygwin patches. When duplicating a socket,
>Cygwin needs to know the parent-child relationship between the
>sockets. When closing a socket, the DLL has to check, if there's
>still a child socket left open. If so, the socket isn't closed
>but moved into a "still-to-close" queue (like the delqueue) until
>all child sockets are closed. The same for the application itself.
>If exit() has been called, Cygwin has to keep the application in a
>zombie-like state until the child sockets have been closed.
>The problem is that this requires a parent-child communication
>which isn't implemented yet. This would be a job for the Cygwin
>Does that invalidate Pierre's approach? I don't think so.
I don't see why a daemon is needed. There is already parent/child
communication going on without the daemon.
More information about the Cygwin-patches