Editing POLLHUP polling

Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.

The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.

Latest revision Your text
Line 1: Line 1:
'''This page is a work in progress'''
Recently I've been trying to listen on multiple sockets at once for events like reading or writing. This has worked fine, but as I've tried to listen for a socket close event I've found the documentation poor and often contradictory. This page is my attempt to figure this topic out.
Recently I've been trying to listen on multiple sockets at once for events like reading or writing. This has worked fine, but as I've tried to listen for a socket close event I've found the documentation poor and often contradictory. This page is my attempt to figure this topic out.


Line 117: Line 119:


* 1997: Linux 2.1.23pre1 added the poll system call, with no AF_UNIX socket support
* 1997: Linux 2.1.23pre1 added the poll system call, with no AF_UNIX socket support
* 1998: Linux 2.1.106pre added AF_UNIX socket support. POLLHUP is returned on socket close
* 1998: Linux 2.1.106pre added AF_UNIX socket support
* 2000: Linux 2.3.41pre2 returns POLLIN on empty socket close
* 2000: Linux 2.3.41pre2 returns POLLIN on empty socket close


Line 155: Line 157:
The history of OpenBSD's behaviour is as follows:
The history of OpenBSD's behaviour is as follows:


* 1996: [https://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/sys/kern/sys_generic.c.diff?r1=1.4&r2=1.5 OpenBSD implements poll]. POLLHUP is not returned by sockets
* 1996 may 18: poll() as a system call def0fdca14684753dfcf5932f90c11d82dd5c6da
* 2013: [https://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/sys/kern/sys_socket.c.diff?r1=1.16&r2=1.17 OpenBSD implements POLLHUP on sockets]
* 2013 oct 4: 1dd598610a0d79ae84da34f1e0d0f8bebdd38ecd
* 2013 oct 6: 8e5efd0e12529b9c3820f5399c9da6a63281c34f
* 2013 sep 28: 54beff47b69a9978611dfbe9f827c01d91357417
* 2015 may 10: b7b44fe5796e416f560eb15867dc757db11a47d6 POLLHUP?
* 2020 jun 15: 2b88cdafd374c425bef518b6071e7ccde4677902 EVHUP
* 2003 sep 23: 154dfaaa7e8e replace select backends
* 2020 jun 15: 2b88cdafd374c425bef518b6071e7ccde4677902 match POLLHUP
* 2022 feb 8: c5e59ae303d9 final switch to kqueue


== NetBSD ==
== NetBSD ==
Line 213: Line 222:


== Conclusions ==
== Conclusions ==
Linux is the only system that documents the behaviour of polling only for POLLHUP. Next to that are FreeBSD and OpenBSD where the behaviour works and probably won't be changed as applications in the wild depend on it. Outside those systems I have no clue if this is a viable solution to this problem.
poll can be used to check for socket closure alone on some systems, but it isn't portable. But it's a little more portable than kqueue and epoll?
 
In general I have a sour feeling towards poll. It mixes up the task select does of waiting for system calls to not block with reporting a vague status of a file descriptors that you would learn about anyway by using system calls. POLLHUP feels like and reads like an afterthought.
 
In the future I'm definitely going to be using epoll or kqueue for my work. These tools have proper documentation and give concrete guarantees about how my program is going to work.
[[Category:Research]]
Please note that all contributions to JookWiki are considered to be released under the Creative Commons Zero (Public Domain) (see JookWiki:Copyrights for details). If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource. Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!

To edit this page, please answer the question that appears below (more info):

Cancel Editing help (opens in new window)