Followup to: <OFE8460E54.0C8D85D8-ON8525716F.0074F22F-8825716F.0076D537@us.ibm.com>
By author: Mark A Smith <[email protected]>
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
>
> I discovered that in some cases, send(), sendmsg(), and sendto() are not
> thread-safe. Although the man page for these functions does not specify
> whether these functions are supposed to be thread-safe, my reading of the
> POSIX/SUSv3 specification tells me that they should be. I traced the
> problem to tcp_sendmsg(). I was very curious about this issue, so I wrote
> up a small page to describe in more detail my findings. You can find it at:
> http://www.almaden.ibm.com/cs/people/marksmith/sendmsg.html .
>
> Thanks,
> Mark A. Smith
>
> PS. I am using the term "thread" in the general sense, this is a problem
> independent of pthreads, etc. The problem occurs when two processes
> (whether or not they share an address space) send on the same socket (and
> some other low-resource conditions exist).
>
User error. Writes onto a streaming socket (or a pipe) are
thread-safe, *but not necessarily atomic*, if the size exceeds PIPE_BUF.
If you want atomicity you either have to do your own locking, or use a
DGRAM or SEQPACKET socket.
-hpa
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
