Re: PROBLEM: select() says closed socket readable

[Mike Jagdis <jaggy@purplet.demon.co.uk>]

David S. Miller wrote:
>    From: Jay Rogers <jay@rgrs.com>
>    Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 10:34:09 -0400
> 
>    > Right. It does not block on read, hence it is readable.
>    
>    No, a socket that's never been connected isn't readable, hence
>    select() shouldn't be returning a value of 1 on it.
> 
> You may read without blocking, select() returns 1.

By this logic a socket that is set non-blocking should always be
treated as readable. I think we can all agree that argument is
flawed :-).


The prevailing view from other systems appears to be that reading
from an unconnected (or unconnectING) socket is meaningless so
the socket is not readable.

Presumably there is a damn good reason, or a standards reference,
why that is the wrong behaviour and should be changed?

				Mike