From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 23:43:39 +0000
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] sctp: Free connecting association if there is a pending signal
Message-Id: <20180711234338.GA19320@neilslaptop.think-freely.org>
List-Id: <linux-sctp.vger.kernel.org>
References: <20180709101142.GA1820@bordel.klfree.net>
In-Reply-To: <20180709101142.GA1820@bordel.klfree.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 07:20:02PM +0200, Petr Malat wrote:
> Hi!
> > > $ ./a.out | ts "%H:%M:%S" # Empty lines added for readability
> > > 10:45:46 Testing IPPROTO_SCTP on a blocking socket
> > > 10:45:49   1st connect - rtn: -1 errno: 114 (Operation already in progress)
> > > 10:45:49   2nd connect - rtn: -1 errno: 114 (Operation already in progress)
> > > 10:45:49 Testing IPPROTO_TCP on a blocking socket
> > > 10:46:52   1st connect - rtn: -1 errno: 110 (Connection timed out)
> > > 10:47:55   2nd connect - rtn: -1 errno: 110 (Connection timed out)
> > > 
> > This is the origional case, and I agree that it seems like SCTP is acting as a
> > non-blocking socket here (I presume it returns EINPROGRESS immediately, rather
> > than after some timeout value)?
> It returns after a signal is handled - in my test the signal is
> generated by alarm, but it doesn't matter what is the source of
> the signal.
> The blocking socket can be easilly identified by the return value
> from sock_intr_errno, which is ERESTARTSYS for a blocking operation
> and EINTR for a non-blocking one.
> I can change my patch to free the association only if ERESTARTSYS
> is returned. What do you think about it?
>   Petr
> 
No, I don't think we should be freeing the association without taking direction
from user space here, as I noted before.  
Neil