Home • About Us • A-Z Index • Search * Contact Us • Register • Login • Press • Shop

The Open Brand -- Problem Reporting and Interpretations System

Problem Report 1213 Details

Help Show help | Quick Search | Submit a Test Suite Support Request | Click here to view your privileges

This page provides all information on Problem Report 1213.

Report 1213 Actions

    Problem Report Number 1213
    Submitter's Classification Specification problem
    State Resolved
    Resolution Rejected (REJ)
    Problem Resolution ID REJ.X.0415
    Raised 1970-01-01 08:00
    Updated 2003-03-13 08:00
    Published null
    Product Standard Sockets (UNIX 95)
    Certification Program The Open Brand certification program
    Test Suite VSU version 4.1
    Test Identification CAPIbase/close 11
    Problem Summary PG4U.00052 This test may fail on implementations on due to an inconsistency between XTI_LINGER and SO_LINGER semantics.
    Problem Text
    This test may fail on implementations on due to an inconsistency
    between XTI_LINGER and SO_LINGER semantics.

    We request a waiver on the grounds of a Grey Area due to the XPG4
    Sockets and XPG4 XTI specifications being inconsistent with
    regards to lingering.

    Under t_optmgmt() XTI_LINGER the XPG4 XTI spec says "Depending on
    the implementation, t_close() or close() either block for at
    maximum the linger period, or immediately return, whereupon the
    system holds the connection in existence for at most the linger
    period." There is no mention of lingering on the t_close() page.

    Under close() DESCRIPTION the XPG4 Sockets spec says "If the
    socket is connection-oriented, and the SOCK_LINGER option is set
    for the socket, and the socket has untransmitted data, then
    close() will block for up to the current linger interval until
    all data is transmitted."

    Having two semantics for close() means that the kernel close
    routines must distinguish between Sockets and XTI lingering.
    This breaks the layering of the software. Why should the
    transport providers need to know which interface paradigm an
    application program is using?

    Our close() returns immediately but the kernel continues trying
    to drain the stream completely. This is consistent with the XTI
    requirement. We believe that the two specs should be consistent
    in this respect and that the Sockets spec be interpreted to allow
    that allowed by the XTI specification.
    Test Output
    70||"SPEC1170TESTSUITE AREA close 0"
    110|0 /tset/CAPIbase/fclose/fclose11 10:50:50|Build Start, scenario ref 3-1
    130|0 0 10:50:52|Build End
    10|1 /tset/CAPIbase/fclose/fclose11 10:50:52|TC Start, scenario ref 3-1, ICs {11
    }
    15|1 1.10 1|TCM Start
    400|1 11 1 10:50:52|IC Start
    200|1 1 10:50:52|TP Start
    520|1 1 5853 1 1|SPEC1170TESTSUITE CASE 11
    520|1 1 5853 1 2|If the implementation supports the AF_INET communications domai
    n
    520|1 1 5853 1 3|and a connection-oriented socket type:
    520|1 1 5853 1 4|A successful call to int close(int fildes) for a
    520|1 1 5853 1 5|connection-oriented socket with untransmitted data and
    520|1 1 5853 1 6|the SO_LINGER option is set for the socket shall block
    520|1 1 5853 1 7|for up to the current linger interval until all data
    520|1 1 5853 1 8|is transmitted.
    520|1 1 5854 1 1|TEST: AF_INET SOCK_STREAM
    520|1 1 5854 1 2|PREP: Create test sockaddr_in: address = 147.2.164.40, port = 4
    913
    520|1 1 5854 2 1|PREP: Create socket
    520|1 1 5854 2 2|PREP: Bind to socket
    520|1 1 5854 2 3|PREP: Call listen for socket
    520|1 1 5854 2 4|PREP: Signal child parent is ready
    520|1 1 5854 2 5|PREP: Wait for child to complete
    520|1 1 5855 1 1|PREP: Child: wait for parent
    520|1 1 5855 1 2|PREP: Create a socket
    520|1 1 5855 1 3|PREP: Connect socket to address 147.2.164.40, port 4913
    520|1 1 5855 1 4|PREP: Set 5 second linger interval
    520|1 1 5855 1 5|TEST: Repeatedly send 1024 bytes until send blocks
    520|1 1 5855 1 6|TEST: close() lingers
    520|1 1 5855 1 7|ERROR: close() did not linger as per the time specified
    520|1 1 5855 1 8| Expected at least 5 seconds, actually 0 seconds
    220|1 1 1 10:50:55|FAIL
    410|1 11 1 10:50:55|IC End
    80|1 0 10:50:55|TC End
    900|10:50:55|TCC End

    Review Information

    Review Type TSMA Review
    Start Date null
    Completed null
    Status Complete
    Review Recommendation No Resolution Given
    Review Response
    We recommend this request be refused after review.

    This IR correctly points out an issue that needs addressed. But
    we believe the recommended remedy may be wrong.

    The suggested change may break sockets-based applications that
    employ SO_LINGER. There are many more sockets based applications
    than there are XTI applications. This leads us to believe a
    to the XTI specification should be the preferred means of
    resolving this issue.

    Since the grey area exists between specs rather than in the spec
    governing this test suite we recommend this request be refused
    until the conflict between the two specs can be resolved.

    Review Type Expert Group Review
    Start Date null
    Completed null
    Status Complete
    Review Resolution No Resolution Given
    Review Conclusion
    There was no disagreement with the consultant.

    Review Type SA Review
    Start Date null
    Completed null
    Status Complete
    Review Resolution Rejected (REJ)
    Review Conclusion
    This request is refused.

    Problem Reporting System Options:

     

    Back   

Contact the Certification Authority