Corinna Vinschen wrote: > Sorry if I'm dense but... shouldn't the new FD_SETCF functionality > allow to do the "right thing" without adding the oldsocks variable > at all?!? You wrote about the disadvantage that the child inherits > that array...
The oldsocks array is needed in the parent because the MS bug precisely requires the last close() on a socket to be done by the parent, after all other processes referencing the socket are gone (*). It's true that the oldsocks array is not needed in the child. Is there a way to declare a variable "NO_COPY" in an application? However the oldsocks array is just a an array of integers. The child can't (and won't try anyway) make use of them because the underlying handles have not been duplicated. (*) My example code assumes that the child has not created detached processes that keep accessing the socket after the child has exited (but exec() chains are OK). Is that the case for applications created by inetd & sshd? If this assumption is not true, then shutdown() can't be called in the parent and CLOSE_WAIT may still occur, albeit at a reduced frequency [probably]. Pierre
