[erlang-questions] {error,closed} vs. {error,econnreset}

Lukas Larsson lukas@REDACTED
Thu Aug 16 14:36:52 CEST 2018


On Mon, 6 Aug 2018, 10:49 Bekes, Andras G, <Andras.Bekes@REDACTED>

> Hi All,
> Reviving this old thread again, because I am getting more and more
> convinced that we need further changes.
> We're still observing connection close events when an error should be
> reported to gen_tcp level.
> It can be a reset error somehow still not reported as 'econnreset', but I
> suspect it must be some other error.

I suppose that you have not managed to catch the error in a tcp dump as
Rory asked for?

> I checked the code in inet_drv.c. The function
> static int tcp_recv(tcp_descriptor* desc, int request_len)
> seems to work properly -- a reset is either reported as closed or
> econnreset, depending on show_econnreset, all other errors are reported as
> errors.
> However, the function
> static int tcp_send_or_shutdown_error(tcp_descriptor* desc, int err)
> hides errors. Connection reset errors are properly handled (either
> reported as closed or econnreset, depending on show_econnreset), but all
> other errors are just reported as closed.
> Active and passive modes have independent code paths, but I think both do
> the same: all errors are reported as normal close -- except for econnreset.

There is a merge of error codes happening in tcp_send_error, so some other
errors get mapped into econnreset before tcp_send_or_shutdown_error is

> Apparently I need to detect all errors.
> Is it possible to implement a show_errors (or show_all_errors) flag, too?
> Actually, this new flag could replace the current show_econnreset flag.
> Having two separate flags for econnreset & others requires more complex
> code, but having a single show_errors flag would simplify the current that
> provides special treatment for econnreset.
> I am not sure if it makes much sense to expose connection reset errors but
> still mask all other errors as normal close events.
> From a farther point of view, it seems there are network-programming tasks
> (there is at least one!), for which Erlang seems not suitable. This sounds
> rather sad.
> Luckily the fix doesn't seem difficult.
> What do you think?

I agree that it should be possible to get the original error from the tcp
stack. Given the discussions here https://github.com/erlang/otp/pull/731,
maybe it is time to reverse the options so that returning the original
error becomes the default and you have to set an option to get the
backwards compatible behaviour?

We are currently in the process of a major overhaul of gen_tcp and friends,
so maybe this can be changed while doing that, as we are bound to break
backwards compatibility in various ways during that rewrite anyways.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20180816/5f254f8e/attachment.htm>

More information about the erlang-questions mailing list