close() of active socket does not work on FreeBSD 6

Daniel Eischen deischen at
Thu Dec 21 09:15:49 PST 2006

On Thu, 21 Dec 2006, Robert Watson wrote:

> On Wed, 20 Dec 2006, Julian Elischer wrote:
>>> I think the main concern is if we will record every thread using a fd, 
>>> that means, when you call read() on a fd, you record your thread pointer 
>>> into the fd's thread list, when one wants to close the fd, it has to 
>>> notify all the threads in the list, set a flag for each thread, the flag 
>>> indicates a thread is interrupted because the fd was closed, when the 
>>> thread returns from deep code path to read() syscall, it should check the 
>>> flag, and return EBADF to user if it was set. whatever, a reserved signal 
>>> or TDF_INTERRUPT may interrupt a thread. but since there are many file 
>>> operations, I don't know if we are willing to pay such overheads to every 
>>> file syscall, extra locking is not welcomed.
>> I think you are only intersted in treads that are sleeping.. so you allow a 
>> sleeping thread to save a pointer to the fd (or whatever) on which it is 
>> sleeping, along with the sleep address.
>> items that are not sleeping are either already returning, or are going to 
>> sleep, in which case they can check at that time.
> Hence my question about select and poll: should they throw an exception state 
> when a file descriptor is closed out from under them?  They often sleep on 
> hundreds or thousands of file descriptors, and not just one.

Yes, I would think so.  Solaris behaves this way also, although
there seems to be a bug in Solaris 8 (version tested) in that
select() returns -1 but errno isn't properly set (it is 0).


More information about the freebsd-arch mailing list