From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <f.weber@proxmox.com>
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68])
 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EEF8E9683A
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 25 Jan 2023 13:19:58 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 24905FA9A
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 25 Jan 2023 13:19:33 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com
 [94.136.29.106])
 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 25 Jan 2023 13:19:32 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
 by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 47A484612F
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 25 Jan 2023 13:19:32 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <fadb0d22-51aa-d97b-86f6-ae6a658045e4@proxmox.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2023 13:19:31 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.6.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Wolfgang Bumiller <w.bumiller@proxmox.com>
Cc: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
References: <20230119123902.745440-1-f.weber@proxmox.com>
 <20230125082504.otpcwjshk5qxezqt@casey.proxmox.com>
From: Friedrich Weber <f.weber@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <20230125082504.otpcwjshk5qxezqt@casey.proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 0.574 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
 BAYES_00                 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
 KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
 NICE_REPLY_A           -1.148 Looks like a legit reply (A)
 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to DNSWL was
 blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block
 for more information.
 SPF_HELO_NONE           0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
 SPF_PASS               -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [RFC container] fix: shutdown: if lxc-stop fails,
 wait for socket closing with timeout
X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>, 
 <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>, 
 <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2023 12:19:59 -0000

On 25/01/2023 09:25, Wolfgang Bumiller wrote:
> The general approach is fine, but `run_with_timeout` uses SIGALRM and
> messes with signal handlers which is rather inelegant for such a thing,
> we should limit its use to when we have no other option (mainly
> file-locking).
>
> For this case we can just use IO::Poll like:
>
>      my $poll = IO::Poll->new();
>      $poll->mask($sock => POLLIN | POLLHUP); # watch for input & EOF
>      $poll->poll($shutdown_timeout);
>
> If the socket was closed, then `$poll->mask($sock)` should contain the
> `POLLHUP` bits.

Thanks for the suggestion, looks much nicer! I'll send a new version of 
the patch.