Right. Yes, I had a typo. I meant that it shouldn't die on seeing a
read EOF after closing the write side of the socket.
So, what you're saying is:
* nc sees EOF on stdin
* nc decides to abort before seeing the rest of the data come in from
the remote socket (and then trying to write it, and abor
On Friday, July 19, 2013 10:16:15 pm Yuri wrote:
> On 07/19/2013 14:04, John Baldwin wrote:
> > Hmm, that definitely looks like garbage. How are you with gdb scripting?
> > You could write a script that walks the PQ_ACTIVE queue and see if this
> > pointers ends up in there. It would then be inte
On Friday, July 19, 2013 1:45:11 pm rank1see...@gmail.com wrote:
> I had 2 panics: (Both occured at 3 AM, so had to be daily task)
>
> First (Jul 2 03:06:50 2013):
> --
> Fatal trap 12: page fault while in kernel mode
> fault virtual address = 0x19
> fault code = supervisor read, p
In message
Adrian Chadd wrote:
>Right. Yes, I had a typo. I meant that it shouldn't die on seeing a
>read EOF after closing the write side of the socket.
>
>So, what you're saying is:
>
>* nc sees EOF on stdin
Yes.
>* nc decides to abort before seeing the rest of the data come in from
>the re
Right, and your patch just stops the shutdown(), right? Rather than
teaching nc to correctly check BOTH socket states before deciding to
close things.
I'd personally rather see nc taught to check to see whether it can
possibly make ANY more progress before deciding to shut things down.
-adrian
5 matches
Mail list logo