C sockets: using shutdown() to stop server running in background - c

Question

I have implemented end_server() method using some volatile flag should_server_end = true/false. I have used non-blocking connection sockets to enable checking this flag between consecutive recv() calls. It works fine. But I have read about using shutdown(sock, SHUT_RDWR) called from the main thread that can stop the server (and its connections) running in the background. I would like to try this approach in my app and implement some alternative methods instead of end_server() like shutdown_server().
I have tried something like this:
int pasv_sock = server_info_sock(server_info);
if(shutdown(pasv_sock, SHUT_RDWR) < 0) {
fprintf(stderr, "shutdown: failed! %s\n", strerror(errno));
return FAILURE;
}
But now I am getting error message:
shutdown: failed! Socket is not connected
which means shutdown() return this error code:
ENOTCONN
The specified socket is not connected.
1. Can I only use shutdown on active (connection) sockets and not on passive (server) socket. Should I just use close()?
Next I change shutdown() to close() on passive socket, and then nothing happens. No errors but as in the previous method with shutdown connection still works correctly and I can send() and recv() packets of data.
2. Does it mean that close()-ing passive socket only stops possibility of making new connections with the server (server will no longer accept connections?)
So I have changed the code to something like this:
static void shutdown_conn_sock_data_handler(void *data, size_t data_size) {
sock_fd_t *conn_sock = (sock_fd_t *) data;
printf("Connection sock: %d closing...!\n", *conn_sock);
if(shutdown(*conn_sock, SHUT_RDWR) < 0) {
fprintf(stderr, "shutdown: failed! %s\n", strerror(errno));
return;
}
}
server_info_set_force_shut_down(server_info, 1);
const linked_list_t *conn_socks = server_info_conn_socks(server_info);
linked_list_travers(conn_socks, shutdown_conn_sock_data_handler);
int pasv_sock = server_info_sock(server_info);
if(close(pasv_sock) < 0) {
fprintf(stderr, "close: failed! %s\n", strerror(errno));
return FAILURE;
}
return SUCCESS;
}
It works now but this need also some flag to give the hint information about the closed server, otherwise, it will be closed with some error message as trying to accept new connections on the already closed passive socket.
So before trying to accept a new connection I need to check like this:
while(1) {
if(server_info_should_shut_down(server_info)) {
return CLOSED;
}
if(server_info_force_shut_down(server_info)) {
return FORCE_CLOSED;
}
As you can see such a force close approach doesn't differ much from lazy shutdown when I just set volatile should_shut_down flag and wait for the server to detect this and close in a regular way. The only benefit is that I possibly no longer have to have:
non-blocking connection sockets in connection_handlers (this functions are supplied by client code using server api)
before each client code need to set:
fcntl(sock_fd, F_SETFL, O_NONBLOCK);
to enable server self-closing.
*client - means programmer using server API, not client side of TCP communication.
moreover there was need to place after each recv failing without new request data
if ((errno == EAGAIN) || (errno == EWOULDBLOCK)) {
// call to recv() on non-blocking socket result with nothing to receive
continue;
}
and client-code needs to add in connection_handler in between each client-side request:
if(server_info_should_shut_down(server_info))
return CLOSED;
So implementing this shutdown_server() method instead of end_server()
I can hide implementation details inside server API and allow user of this API to provide simpler and cleaner connection handler. Just recv/send logic without need to inject some special code that enables the server to be closable!
3. Is it this new approach with shutdown() correct? Didn't I missed anything?

Answer 1

Can I only use shutdown on active (connection) sockets and not on passive (server) socket.
Yes.
Should I just use close()?
Yes.
Next I change shutdown() to close() on passive socket, and then nothing happens. No errors but as in the previous method with shutdown connection still works correctly and I can send() and recv() packets of data.
Correct. That's how it works.
Does it mean that close()-ing passive socket only stops possibility of making new connections with the server (server will no longer accept connections?)
Yes. It doesn't affect existing accepted sockets.
Is it this new approach with shutdown() correct? Didn't I missed anything?
You should not shutdown the sockets for output. That will cause errors at both ends: this end, because it may write to a shutdown socket, and the other end because it will receive a truncation.
All you need to to is shutdown each accepted socket for input (i.e. SHUT_RD). That will cause the next recv() on that socket to return zero,meaning the peer disconneceted, whereupon the existing code should already close the socket and exit the thread.