It might be non-blocking, but it also might be blocking.
Cannot take the chance, as Accept might block indefinitely
and make it impossible to acquire ForkLock exclusively
(during fork+exec).
Fixes #4737.
R=golang-dev, dave, iant, mikioh.mikioh
CC=golang-dev
https://golang.org/cl/
7309050
syscall.ForkLock.RUnlock()
// We want blocking mode for the new fd, hence the double negative.
+ // This also puts the old fd into blocking mode, meaning that
+ // I/O will block the thread instead of letting us use the epoll server.
+ // Everything will still work, just with more threads.
if err = syscall.SetNonblock(ns, false); err != nil {
return nil, &OpError{"setnonblock", fd.net, fd.laddr, err}
}
}
// See ../syscall/exec_unix.go for description of ForkLock.
- // It is okay to hold the lock across syscall.Accept
+ // It is probably okay to hold the lock across syscall.Accept
// because we have put fd.sysfd into non-blocking mode.
- syscall.ForkLock.RLock()
+ // However, a call to the File method will put it back into
+ // blocking mode. We can't take that risk, so no use of ForkLock here.
nfd, sa, err = syscall.Accept(fd)
if err == nil {
syscall.CloseOnExec(nfd)
}
- syscall.ForkLock.RUnlock()
if err != nil {
return -1, nil, err
}
// descriptor as nonblocking and close-on-exec.
func accept(fd int) (int, syscall.Sockaddr, error) {
// See ../syscall/exec_unix.go for description of ForkLock.
- // It is okay to hold the lock across syscall.Accept
+ // It is probably okay to hold the lock across syscall.Accept
// because we have put fd.sysfd into non-blocking mode.
- syscall.ForkLock.RLock()
+ // However, a call to the File method will put it back into
+ // blocking mode. We can't take that risk, so no use of ForkLock here.
nfd, sa, err := syscall.Accept(fd)
if err == nil {
syscall.CloseOnExec(nfd)
}
- syscall.ForkLock.RUnlock()
if err != nil {
return -1, nil, err
}