From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Andy Wingo Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.bugs Subject: Re: Problem with netcat Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 20:03:49 +0200 Message-ID: References: <87ei588zc9.fsf@netris.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1302575331 9366 80.91.229.12 (12 Apr 2011 02:28:51 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 02:28:51 +0000 (UTC) Cc: bug-guile mailing list , Detlev Zundel To: Mark H Weaver Original-X-From: bug-guile-bounces+guile-bugs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Apr 12 04:28:47 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-bugs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from [140.186.70.17] (helo=lists.gnu.org) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Q9TLT-0001nz-IN for guile-bugs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 12 Apr 2011 04:28:47 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:59997 helo=lists2.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Q9TLT-0005J5-0D for guile-bugs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 11 Apr 2011 22:28:47 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:58325) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Q9SgC-0003kr-Bg for bug-guile@gnu.org; Mon, 11 Apr 2011 21:46:13 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Q9LSR-0007WT-SN for bug-guile@gnu.org; Mon, 11 Apr 2011 14:03:28 -0400 Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com ([64.74.157.62]:39060 helo=sasl.smtp.pobox.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Q9LSR-0007Uk-Ps for bug-guile@gnu.org; Mon, 11 Apr 2011 14:03:27 -0400 Original-Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 743694F69; Mon, 11 Apr 2011 14:05:24 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=aXPqeGcQmtjmYa8+NR1MgPMgnpo=; b=oZNH0u pFAcJxdxF7zqJnryelZVOzpLx9pVFo8eXZUz6NC2goF8KdR8bHnoywQ0VCphsa+l rF/mf1iGz5tjJCNu3sq2lvlkpwYCCcmMyML1i+yH8rtyHdHPEWnLnHM/bmV77xJa ypr2+nnAeSQI0HxnFQ6QRis13JVy8/Yc2r7nM= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=ENZoffkhX/GCjljBdlrEBL5+024uDigJ /IFG/n2DPgmlbMlLPTYKIjXlgmEQS08UbbkWvvhNhDJBRU+0Kf0BjsbIV7CLaGSA 9P1WKXm75uvfLnore7YapqwHjA6cZ+cT/7/NDkJM5X/vBq8XKxktOWSN3txNwTKG 52aPnKJDEp8= Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5390B4F66; Mon, 11 Apr 2011 14:05:21 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from unquote.localdomain (unknown [90.164.198.39]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7E42A4F64; Mon, 11 Apr 2011 14:05:18 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <87ei588zc9.fsf@netris.org> (Mark H. Weaver's message of "Mon, 11 Apr 2011 13:36:22 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 44123482-6466-11E0-A715-E8AB60295C12-02397024!a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 (beta) X-Received-From: 64.74.157.62 X-BeenThere: bug-guile@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Bug reports for GUILE, GNU's Ubiquitous Extension Language" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-guile-bounces+guile-bugs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-guile-bounces+guile-bugs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org X-Broken-Reverse-DNS: no host name found for IP address 140.186.70.17 Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.bugs:5454 Archived-At: On Mon 11 Apr 2011 19:36, Mark H Weaver writes: > Andy Wingo wrote: >> I pushed a (sigaction SIGPIPE SIG_IGN) to (system repl repl), which >> should fix the issue. > > Isn't this a bad idea? SIGPIPE generally indicates that something went > wrong. If we ignore it, important problems may go unnoticed. To me, > this seems kind of like ignoring SIGSEGV to get around a memory access > to an unmapped area that would be inconvenient to prevent. > > Furthermore, what happens if a REPL is started within a Guile process > that wants to install its own handler for SIGPIPE? > > Why is a pipe being created here, anyway? Why not just a socket? Sorry, this isn't in (system repl repl), it's in (system repl server) -- so it's a socket. If the socket is closed without cleanup, you might get a SIGPIPE. It's necessary in net-facing servers. You don't get this behavior if you don't --listen. Regards, Andy -- http://wingolog.org/