On Oct 5, 2010, at 7:09 PM, Garrett Cooper wrote: > On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 8:58 AM, Garrett Cooper <gcooper_at_freebsd.org> wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 7:52 AM, Garrett Cooper <gcooper_at_freebsd.org> wrote: >>> On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 1:55 AM, Daichi GOTO <daichi_at_ongs.co.jp> wrote: >>>> On Tue, 5 Oct 2010 01:23:02 -0700 >>>> Garrett Cooper <gcooper_at_FreeBSD.org> wrote: >>>>> 2010/10/4 Daichi GOTO <daichi_at_ongs.co.jp>: >>>>>> Thanks nice test tool :) And at last I got it excepting one mystery! >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, 4 Oct 2010 20:17:08 -0700 >>>>>> Garrett Cooper <gcooper_at_FreeBSD.org> wrote: >>>>>>> Following through the same process on FreeBSD... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Window 1: >>>>>>> $ ls -l /tmp/lockfile >>>>>>> ls: /tmp/lockfile: No such file or directory >>>>>>> $ ./test_fcntl >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Window 2: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> $ ls -l /tmp/lockfile >>>>>>> -rwsr-x--- 1 garrcoop wheel 0 Oct 4 20:14 /tmp/lockfile >>>>>>> $ ./test_fcntl >>>>>>> test_fcntl: fcntl: Resource temporarily unavailable >>>>>> >>>>>> Just my mystery is as follow: >>>>>> >>>>>> Windows 1: >>>>>> % ./test_fcntl >>>>>> My pid: 43490 >>>>>> >>>>>> Windows 2: >>>>>> % ls -l /tmp/lockfile >>>>>> -r-sr-x--- 1 daichi wheel 0 10月 5 15:02 /tmp/lockfile <--- is it weird, isn't it? >>>>>> % ./test_fcntl >>>>>> test_fcntl: open: Permission denied >>>>>> % >>>>>> >>>>>> Oops... What's wrong... /tmp is as follow: >>>>>> >>>>>> % mount | grep tmp >>>>>> /dev/ada0s1f on /tmp (ufs, local, noatime, soft-updates) >>>>>> % dumpfs /tmp | grep journal >>>>>> flags soft-updates+journal >>>>>> % >>>>>> >>>>>> And working scene: >>>>>> >>>>>> Windows 2: >>>>>> % chmod u+w /tmp/lockfile >>>>>> % ls -l /tmp/lockfile >>>>>> -rwsr-x--- 1 daichi wheel 0 10月 5 15:22 /tmp/lockfile >>>>>> % ./test_fcntl >>>>>> My pid: 43646 >>>>>> test_fcntl: fcntl[1]: Resource temporarily unavailable >>>>>> PID=43490 has the lock >>>>>> % >>>>> >>>>> What's your umask and what are the permissions on /tmp? >>>> >>>> % ll / | grep tmp >>>> drwxrwxrwt 14 root wheel 1024 10月 5 17:19 tmp >>>> % umask >>>> 022 >>>> % rm -f test >>>> % touch test >>>> % ll | grep test >>>> -rw-r--r-- 1 daichi wheel 0 10月 5 17:52 test >>>> % >>> >>> The permissions look ok from my perspective, but the umask is >>> different, so you might want to try my umask to make sure that your >>> results match mine (and we need to check the requirements to determine >>> whether or not the behavior for FreeBSD's umask syscall is correct): >>> >>> $ ls -la /tmp/ | head -n 2 >>> total 462686 >>> drwxrwxrwt 51 root wheel 11776 Oct 5 03:11 . >>> $ umask >>> 0022 >>> >>> Where and how is /tmp mounted (is it a real partition, what >>> filesystem, etc)? >>> BTW, when I change my umask to match your's I don't get the same >>> results you do on my home machine: >>> >>> Window 1: >>> >>> $ umask 022 >>> $ ./test_fcntl >>> My pid: 17353 >>> >>> Window 2: >>> >>> $ ./test_fcntl >>> My pid: 17356 >>> test_fcntl: fcntl[1]: Resource temporarily unavailable >>> PID=17353 has the lock >>> $ ls -l /tmp/lockfile >>> -rwSr----- 1 gcooper wheel 0 Oct 5 07:49 /tmp/lockfile >>> >>> Just to note, the tests before were run on the RHEL 4.8 box with >>> the following info, and the FreeBSD box with the following info: >>> >>> Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS release 4 (Nahant Update 8) >>> Linux sjc-lds-102 2.6.9-89.0.11.ELsmp #1 SMP Mon Aug 31 11:00:34 EDT >>> 2009 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux >>> >>> FreeBSD bioshock.cisco.com 9.0-CURRENT FreeBSD 9.0-CURRENT #1 >>> r211767M: Sat Aug 28 00:28:45 PDT 2010 >>> garrcoop_at_bioshock.cisco.com:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/BIOSHOCK amd64 >>> >>> The tests above were run on a FreeBSD box with the following info: >>> >>> FreeBSD bayonetta.local 9.0-CURRENT FreeBSD 9.0-CURRENT #9 r211309M: >>> Thu Aug 19 22:50:36 PDT 2010 >>> root_at_bayonetta.local:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/BAYONETTA amd64 >>> >>> On bayonetta /tmp is SUJ backed (probably should change that >>> though), and on bioshock it's not SUJ backed. >> >> And while this might be a good mental exercise, I think we're missing >> the original point of your bug: >> >> You were getting ECONNREFUSED because a socket was in `use', even >> though all instances of mozc_server were dead (at least that's the >> case with me). So the question I guess that's worth asking is: > > Statement incorrect: socket wasn't in use. The logic needs to be > rewritten to account for this case and setup the socket again if this > occurs. It would be a good idea to do this if the file wasn't locked. Maybe behavior difference of fcntl when called with F_SETLN or F_GETLN you found is the answer of this issue. I'll try to check it out. Thanks! And I'll try to treat correct l_pid when called with F_SETLN. I guess this change will be benefits for other applications that use fcntl(2) like mozc_server does. >> 1. What process/application does it need to establish a Unix style socket with? >> 2. Why isn't that socket being cleaned up by the OS at exit? > > Thanks! > -Garrett > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-current_at_freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe_at_freebsd.org"Received on Thu Oct 07 2010 - 12:36:57 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:08 UTC