| To: | qmail@list.cr.yp.to |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Is saferead not really safe on Solaris 8? |
| From: | Harald Hanche-Olsen <hanche@math.ntnu.no> |
| Date: | Sat, 25 Nov 2006 22:23:32 +0100 (CET) |
| Delivered-to: | sp-com-lists@consult.net |
| Delivered-to: | gmail-qmail@securepoint.com |
| Delivered-to: | sp.com.list@gmail.com |
| Delivered-to: | mailing list qmail@list.cr.yp.to |
| In-reply-to: | <20061125202235.6038.qmail@nudo.bsws.de> |
| Mailing-list: | contact qmail-help@list.cr.yp.to; run by ezmlm |
| References: | <20061124.191156.02469879.hanche@math.ntnu.no> <20061125202235.6038.qmail@nudo.bsws.de> |
+ Henning Brauer <lists-qmail@bsws.de>: | AFAIR there is no guarantee that read() cannot block after select() | anounced readability. The only way to make sure read() won't block | is using nonblocking sockets. Hmm. Interesting, though I am not sure what to make of it. | however, I have no case at hand where select/poll would indicate | readability and a read() thereafter would block. Well, it seems to happen. I wonder if it could if a signal arrives at an inopportune moment? (I just stumbled across djb's page on the self-pipe trick at http://cr.yp.to/docs/selfpipe.html - but since he has not employed it in qmail-smtpd, he must have been assuming that it is not relevant.) - Harald |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: Is saferead not really safe on Solaris 8?, Henning Brauer |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Inconsistency in the queue, Kyle Wheeler |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Is saferead not really safe on Solaris 8?, Henning Brauer |
| Next by Thread: | Question about Qmail relating to MX retry processing, Marc Perkel |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |