-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 939
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Sockets cleanup #1351
Draft
Rob-Hague
wants to merge
5
commits into
sshnet:develop
Choose a base branch
from
Rob-Hague:sockets
base: develop
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Draft
Sockets cleanup #1351
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
The existing AwaitableSocketAsyncEventArgs is useful in principal for being reusable in order to save on allocations. However, we don't reuse it and the implementation is flawed. Instead, use implementations based on TaskCompletionSource, and add a SendAsync method. Because sockets are only natively cancellable on modern .NET, I was torn between 3 options for cancellation on the targets which use SocketExtensions: 1. Do not respect the CancellationToken once the socket operation has started. I believe this is what earlier versions of .NET Core did when CancellationToken overloads were first added via SocketTaskExtensions. 2. Do not close the socket upon cancellation, meaning the socket operation continues to run after the Task has completed. This is what the previous implementation effectively does. 3. Close the socket when the CancellationToken is cancelled, in order to stop the socket operation. The behaviour of a socket after (proper) cancellation is undefined(?), so in any case it should not make sense to use the socket after triggering cancellation. I felt that option 2 was the worst of them. This iteration goes for option 3.
Some methods in SocketAbstraction have code to retry a socket operation if it returns certain error codes. However AFAIK, these errors are only pertinent to nonblocking sockets, which we do not use. For blocking sockets, Socket.Send{Async} only returns when all of the bytes are sent. There is no need for a loop. These changes combined mean there is no need for Send methods in SocketAbstraction.
* Use "using" and ManualResetEventSlim in Connect * Delete unused and unnecessary methods
In order to ensure the buffer is read completely, as in SocketAbstraction.Read
Do you want to finish something here? |
I think it's ready for review |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
1. Replace AwaitableSocketAsyncEventArgs in SocketExtensions
The existing AwaitableSocketAsyncEventArgs is useful in principal for being
reusable in order to save on allocations. However, we don't reuse it and the
implementation is flawed (#913). Instead, use implementations based on
TaskCompletionSource, and add a SendAsync method.
Because sockets are only natively cancellable on modern .NET, I was torn between
3 options for cancellation on the targets which use SocketExtensions:
I believe this is what earlier versions of .NET Core did when CancellationToken
overloads were first added via SocketTaskExtensions.
continues to run after the Task has completed. This is what the previous
implementation effectively does.
the socket operation. The behaviour of a socket after proper cancellation
is undefined(?), so in any case it should not make sense to use the
socket after triggering cancellation.
I felt that option 2 was the worst of them. This iteration goes for option 3.
2. Remove "IsErrorResumable" and SocketAbstraction.Send{Async}
Some methods in SocketAbstraction have code to retry a socket operation if it
returns certain error codes. However AFAIK, these errors are only pertinent to
nonblocking sockets, which we do not use.
For blocking sockets, Socket.Send{Async} only returns when all of the bytes are
sent. There is no need for a loop.
These changes combined mean there is no need for Send methods in SocketAbstraction.
3. Cleanup SocketAbstraction
4. Add a loop to SocketAbstraction.ReadAsync
In order to ensure the buffer is read completely, as in SocketAbstraction.Read