[PATCH] Re: is setsockopt SO_NOSIGPIPE work?

[N.J. Mann]

On Thursday,  1 March, 2007 at 17:34:50 +0000, Bruce M. Simpson wrote:
> Anton Yuzhaninov wrote:
> >
> >Thanks, with send() it works fine.
> >I think it should be documented in setsockopt(2).
> Try this patch. The comment doesn't reflect what the code does. SIGPIPE 
> may actually be getting queued twice in your case. It is most likely 
> that the process's main thread wasn't preempted before return from the 
> syscall.
> 
> Perhaps someone more familiar with the signal code than I can chime in.
> 
> --- sys_generic.c     14 Oct 2006 19:01:55 -0000     1.151
> +++ sys_generic.c     1 Mar 2007 17:30:39 -0000
> @@ -489,7 +489,7 @@ dofilewrite(td, fd, fp, auio, offset, fl
>            error == EINTR || error == EWOULDBLOCK))
>                error = 0;
>        /* Socket layer is responsible for issuing SIGPIPE. */
> -       if (error == EPIPE) {
> +       if (fp->f_type != DTYPE_SOCKET && error == EPIPE) {
>                PROC_LOCK(td->td_proc);
>                psignal(td->td_proc, SIGPIPE);
>                PROC_UNLOCK(td->td_proc);

Could this be why mail from cron doesn't work for me in 6.2?  I got as
far as finding that cron receives a SIGPIPE while sending the mail
message to sendmail, but never worked out why.  I ended up hacking cron
to ignore SIGPIPE and then ENOTIME to investigate further.


Cheers,
       Nick.
-- 
Please do not CC me on replies, I read the list and don't need the dupes.