* Question about SOCK_SEQPACKET
@ 2017-05-05 5:18 Sam Kumar
2017-05-05 9:45 ` Steven Whitehouse
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Sam Kumar @ 2017-05-05 5:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
Hello,
I have recently had occasion to use SOCK_SEQPACKET sockets on Linux,
and noticed some odd behavior. When using sendmsg and recvmsg with
these sockets, it seems that the "end-of-record" flag (MSG_EOR) is not
being propagated correctly.
The man page for recvmsg(2) states:
> The msg_flags field in the msghdr is set on return of recvmsg(). It
> can contain several flags:
>
> MSG_EOR
> indicates end-of-record; the data returned completed a record
> (generally used with sockets of type SOCK_SEQPACKET).
>
The man page for recvmsg(3) states:
> For
> message-based sockets, such as SOCK_DGRAM and SOCK_SEQPACKET, the entire
> message shall be read in a single operation.
This leads me to believe that MSG_EOR should be set in the msghdr
struct whenever recvmsg() returns data. However, I am not observing
this flag ever being set, whether or not I set the MSG_EOR when
sending the messages.
If it helps you can take a look at the code I'm using. It is at
https://github.com/samkumar/seqpacket-test/, commit
2a7dbc1f94bafce6950ee726bdd54da96945d083 (HEAD of master at the time
of writing). Look at server.c and client.c (don't bother with
goclient.go).
The reason that I need to check MSG_EOR is that I need to distinguish
between EOF and messages of length 0. For SOCK_STREAM sockets, a
return value of 0 unambiguously means EOF, and for SOCK_DGRAM sockets
a return value of 0 unambiguously means that a datagram of length 0
was received.
Because SOCK_SEQPACKET is both connection-based and message-oriented,
a return value of 0 is ambiguous. Based on my reading of the man
pages, reading the MSG_EOR bit would let me disambiguate between EOF
and a zero-length datagram, because MSG_EOR would be set for a
zero-length datagram, but would not be set for EOF.
If someone could please help me understand MSG_EOR, and how to
distinguish between EOF and zero-length messages in a SOCK_SEQPACKET
connection, I would definitely appreciate it!
Thanks,
Sam Kumar
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: Question about SOCK_SEQPACKET
2017-05-05 5:18 Question about SOCK_SEQPACKET Sam Kumar
@ 2017-05-05 9:45 ` Steven Whitehouse
2017-05-05 10:09 ` Sowmini Varadhan
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Steven Whitehouse @ 2017-05-05 9:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Sam Kumar, linux-kernel, netdev
Hi,
On 05/05/17 06:18, Sam Kumar wrote:
> Hello,
> I have recently had occasion to use SOCK_SEQPACKET sockets on Linux,
> and noticed some odd behavior. When using sendmsg and recvmsg with
> these sockets, it seems that the "end-of-record" flag (MSG_EOR) is not
> being propagated correctly.
It depends which protocol you are using as to whether that is true.
SOCK_SEQPACKET is supposed to be identical to SOCK_STREAM except for the
record separators. That is true for DECnet (but whether DECnet is still
functional is another thing!) and not true for ax.25 which uses
SOCK_SEQPACKET incorrectly. For AF_UNIX that you are using I'm not quite
sure what would be expected.
> The man page for recvmsg(2) states:
>> The msg_flags field in the msghdr is set on return of recvmsg(). It
>> can contain several flags:
>>
>> MSG_EOR
>> indicates end-of-record; the data returned completed a record
>> (generally used with sockets of type SOCK_SEQPACKET).
>>
> The man page for recvmsg(3) states:
>> For
>> message-based sockets, such as SOCK_DGRAM and SOCK_SEQPACKET, the entire
>> message shall be read in a single operation.
>
>
> This leads me to believe that MSG_EOR should be set in the msghdr
> struct whenever recvmsg() returns data. However, I am not observing
> this flag ever being set, whether or not I set the MSG_EOR when
> sending the messages.
>
> If it helps you can take a look at the code I'm using. It is at
> https://github.com/samkumar/seqpacket-test/, commit
> 2a7dbc1f94bafce6950ee726bdd54da96945d083 (HEAD of master at the time
> of writing). Look at server.c and client.c (don't bother with
> goclient.go).
>
> The reason that I need to check MSG_EOR is that I need to distinguish
> between EOF and messages of length 0. For SOCK_STREAM sockets, a
> return value of 0 unambiguously means EOF, and for SOCK_DGRAM sockets
> a return value of 0 unambiguously means that a datagram of length 0
> was received.
>
> Because SOCK_SEQPACKET is both connection-based and message-oriented,
> a return value of 0 is ambiguous. Based on my reading of the man
> pages, reading the MSG_EOR bit would let me disambiguate between EOF
> and a zero-length datagram, because MSG_EOR would be set for a
> zero-length datagram, but would not be set for EOF.
>
> If someone could please help me understand MSG_EOR, and how to
> distinguish between EOF and zero-length messages in a SOCK_SEQPACKET
> connection, I would definitely appreciate it!
>
> Thanks,
> Sam Kumar
That would be my expectation of how it should work - if you ignore
MSG_EOR on recvmsg then what you get is identical to a SOCK_STREAM, and
that every call to recvmsg will return data from (at most) a single
message, with MSG_EOR set if the end of that message has been reached.
That is what POSIX says should happen anyway.
I do wonder if the man page for recvmsg is wrong, or at least a bit
confusing. SOCK_SEQPACKET is stream based not message based - it just
happens to have EOR markers in the stream. There is no reason that the
whole message needs to be returned in a single read, and in fact that
would be impossible if the sender didn't insert any EOR markers but kept
sending data beyond the size that the socket could buffer.
I notice that man 7 socket says SOCK_SEQPACKET is for datagrams of fixed
maximum length which is definitely wrong, as is the statement that a
consumer has to read an entire packet with each system call.
Also it is probably better to ask this question on netdev where it is
likely to get more attention from the net developers, so I'm copying my
reply there too,
Steve.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: Question about SOCK_SEQPACKET
2017-05-05 9:45 ` Steven Whitehouse
@ 2017-05-05 10:09 ` Sowmini Varadhan
2017-05-05 10:34 ` Steven Whitehouse
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Sowmini Varadhan @ 2017-05-05 10:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Steven Whitehouse; +Cc: Sam Kumar, linux-kernel, netdev
On (05/05/17 10:45), Steven Whitehouse wrote:
>
> I do wonder if the man page for recvmsg is wrong, or at least a bit
> confusing. SOCK_SEQPACKET is stream based not message based - it just
> happens to have EOR markers in the stream. There is no reason that the whole
> message needs to be returned in a single read, and in fact that would be
> impossible if the sender didn't insert any EOR markers but kept sending data
> beyond the size that the socket could buffer.
>
> I notice that man 7 socket says SOCK_SEQPACKET is for datagrams of fixed
> maximum length which is definitely wrong, as is the statement that a
> consumer has to read an entire packet with each system call.
Which man page do you think is wrong here? The POSIX definition is here
http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/recvmsg.html
The description in
http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/xsh_chap02_10.html
says, "It is protocol-specific whether a maximum record size is imposed."
In my machine (Ubuntu 4.4.0-72, and it is in socket(2), not socket(7), btw)
doesnt have any references to max length, but I'm not sure I'd boldly assert
"definitely wrong" about the requirement of having to read entire
packet in a system call (see POSIX man page)
--Sowmini
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: Question about SOCK_SEQPACKET
2017-05-05 10:09 ` Sowmini Varadhan
@ 2017-05-05 10:34 ` Steven Whitehouse
2017-05-05 11:21 ` David Laight
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Steven Whitehouse @ 2017-05-05 10:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Sowmini Varadhan; +Cc: Sam Kumar, linux-kernel, netdev
Hi,
On 05/05/17 11:09, Sowmini Varadhan wrote:
> On (05/05/17 10:45), Steven Whitehouse wrote:
>> I do wonder if the man page for recvmsg is wrong, or at least a bit
>> confusing. SOCK_SEQPACKET is stream based not message based - it just
>> happens to have EOR markers in the stream. There is no reason that the whole
>> message needs to be returned in a single read, and in fact that would be
>> impossible if the sender didn't insert any EOR markers but kept sending data
>> beyond the size that the socket could buffer.
>>
>> I notice that man 7 socket says SOCK_SEQPACKET is for datagrams of fixed
>> maximum length which is definitely wrong, as is the statement that a
>> consumer has to read an entire packet with each system call.
> Which man page do you think is wrong here? The POSIX definition is here
>
> http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/recvmsg.html
>
> The description in
>
> http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/xsh_chap02_10.html
>
> says, "It is protocol-specific whether a maximum record size is imposed."
> In my machine (Ubuntu 4.4.0-72, and it is in socket(2), not socket(7), btw)
> doesnt have any references to max length, but I'm not sure I'd boldly assert
> "definitely wrong" about the requirement of having to read entire
> packet in a system call (see POSIX man page)
>
> --Sowmini
>
Just before the part that you've quoted, the description for
SOCK_SEQPACKET says:
"The SOCK_SEQPACKET socket type is similar to the SOCK_STREAM type, and
is also connection-oriented. The only difference between these types is
that record boundaries are maintained using the SOCK_SEQPACKET type. A
record can be sent using one or more output operations and received
using one or more input operations, but a single operation never
transfers parts of more than one record."
The man page for socket says SOCK_SEQPACKET "Provides a sequenced,
reliable, two-way connection-based data transmission path for
datagrams of fixed maximum length" which is not true, because while
there may be a length restriction, it is quite possible that there is
not a length restriction (as per DECnet). It also says "a consumer is
required to read an entire packet with each input system call" which is
also contradicted by POSIX which says that a record can be "received
using one or more input operations". So both statements in the man page
are wrong, I think.
I have to say that I'd not spotted the POSIX recvmsg wording before,
which says "For message-based sockets, such as SOCK_DGRAM and
SOCK_SEQPACKET, the entire message shall be read in a single operation"
however that does contradict the earlier wording, where it explicitly
says that multiple receive operations per record are ok for
SOCK_SEQPACKET - at least if we assume that record == message in this
case. Also, if this restriction was true (one message per recvmsg call)
then MSG_EOR would never be needed on receive, since every recvmsg would
be a single message/record only, and that same document does say that
MSG_EOR can be set on receive for protocols which support it,
Steve.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* RE: Question about SOCK_SEQPACKET
2017-05-05 10:34 ` Steven Whitehouse
@ 2017-05-05 11:21 ` David Laight
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: David Laight @ 2017-05-05 11:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 'Steven Whitehouse', Sowmini Varadhan
Cc: Sam Kumar, linux-kernel, netdev
From: Steven Whitehouse
> Sent: 05 May 2017 11:34
...
> Just before the part that you've quoted, the description for
> SOCK_SEQPACKET says:
> "The SOCK_SEQPACKET socket type is similar to the SOCK_STREAM type, and
> is also connection-oriented. The only difference between these types is
> that record boundaries are maintained using the SOCK_SEQPACKET type. A
> record can be sent using one or more output operations and received
> using one or more input operations, but a single operation never
> transfers parts of more than one record."
Right SOCK_SEQPACKET is for protocols like ISO transport.
There is no limit on the length of a 'record'.
I've written file transfer programs that put the entire file
data into a single 'record'. The receiver disconnected on
receipt of the 'end of record'.
The socket man pages could easily be wrong - they are very IP-centric.
Remember ISO transport use declined when Unix became more popular
back in the mid 1980s. Unix sockets have never really been used for
it - the address information needed just doesn't match that IP
(especially IPv4).
David
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2017-05-05 11:21 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2017-05-05 5:18 Question about SOCK_SEQPACKET Sam Kumar
2017-05-05 9:45 ` Steven Whitehouse
2017-05-05 10:09 ` Sowmini Varadhan
2017-05-05 10:34 ` Steven Whitehouse
2017-05-05 11:21 ` David Laight
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).