Is there a recommended way for CBPeripheralManager to terminate a connection. The best way I have found so far is simply not to respond to dynamic value, then the BLE stack seems to close the connection, but that seems rather crude.
There must be a better way?
No, you can't forcefully close a connection in a clear way from the peripheral side. There is no API for it.
You can break the connection abruptly by not responding to a request, which results in disconnection at most after 30 seconds. This is the standard behavior defined by the Bluetooth specification Vol.3 Part F 3.3.3
A transaction not completed within 30 seconds shall time out. Such a
transaction shall be considered to have failed and the local higher
layers shall be informed of this failure. No more attribute protocol
requests, commands, indica- tions or notifications shall be sent to
the target device on this ATT Bearer.
Related
I'm on a network that usually causes a ton of connection timeout issues, and ocasionally I'm running into read timeout issues as well. Retrying the code whenever a connect timeout happens fixes the problem with connecting to the server. Is is safe to retry the code whenever I get a read_timeout, or whould the response become corrupted? I'm using Ruby, with Net::HTTP client, but I guess this could apply to other languages as well.
A read_timeout means that the server did not send any data within the expected timeout. The response becoming corrupted is less likely as this is TCP.
To answer if it's safe or not to retry depends on what operation you're performing and/or any guarantees the service you're interacting with gives you.
In general GET should be safe to retry.
POST/PUT may need special handling (i.e. rereading some state before deciding to retry) as this usually means that something changes on the server.
When I issue an $.ajax query with a timeout: parameter, and my timeout is met such that error: is invoked, what does that mean?
More specifically:
does that mean the server received the request, but is still processing it? That may mean some effect may occur, so I may have to cancel it on the server, or somehow invalidate data that was already partially written to a database.
Or does that mean I was never able to reach the server at all? This is nice to know since then I don't have to deal with partial data on a server "save"
Or does that mean the request made it part of the way, and now we lost track of it? In this case, I'd have to actually ask the server, "Oh hey, about that request I sent awhile ago... did you get that one? yeah? okay ignore that last save"
OS Commands like tracert make it clear there may be many servers for a TCP command to go through, so if one becomes unresponsive, it's hard to tell if it got it or not. But some protocols require an echo-back to be considered receivable (so I'm not sure if HTTP or Apache is involved in this)
It is how long the client will wait to hear from the server before giving up.
The server may or may not have done its part. The only way for the client to know about that is for the client to be notified. Since you don't want to to leave a process or a human waiting forever, by using a timeout you specify the time to wait for success before giving up.
In KEXT, I am listening for file close via vnode or file scope listener. For certain (very few) files, I need to send file path to my system daemon which does some processing (this has to happen in daemon) and returns the result back to KEXT. The file close call needs to be blocked until I get response from daemon. Based on result I need to some operation in close call and return close call successfully. There is lot of discussion on KEXT communication related topic on the forum. But they are not conclusive and appears be very old (year 2002 around). This requirement can be handled by FtlSendMessage(...) Win32 API. I am looking for equivalent of that on Mac
Here is what I have looked at and want to summarize my understanding:
Mach message: Provides very good way of bidirectional communication using sender and reply ports with queueing mechansim. However, the mach message APIs (e.g. mach_msg, mach_port_allocate, bootstrap_look_up) don't appear to be KPIs. The mach API mach_msg_send_from_kernel can be used, but that alone will not help in bidirectional communication. Is my understanding right?
IOUserClient: This appears be more to do with communicating from User space to KEXT and then having some callbacks from KEXT. I did not find a way to initiate communication from KEXT to daemon and then wait for result from daemon. Am I missing something?
Sockets: This could be last option since I would have to implement entire bidirectional communication channel from KEXT to Daemon.
ioctl/sysctl: I don't know much about them. From what I have read, its not recommended option especially for bidirectional communication
RPC-Mig: Again I don't know much about them. Looks complicated from what I have seen. Not sure if this is recommended way.
KUNCUserNotification: This appears to be just providing notification to the user from KEXT. It does not meet my requirement.
Supported platform is (10.5 onwards). So looking at the requirement, can someone suggest and provide some pointers on this topic?
Thanks in advance.
The pattern I've used for that process is to have the user-space process initiate a socket connection to the KEXT; the KEXT creates a new thread to handle messages over that socket and sleeps the thread. When the KEXT detects an event it needs to respond to, it wakes the messaging thread and uses the existing socket to send data to the daemon. On receiving a response, control is passed back to the requesting thread to decide whether to veto the operation.
I don't know of any single resource that will describe that whole pattern completely, but the relevant KPIs are discussed in Mac OS X Internals (which seems old, but the KPIs haven't changed much since it was written) and OS X and iOS Kernel Programming (which I was a tech reviewer on).
For what it's worth, autofs uses what I assume you mean by "RPC-Mig", so it's not too complicated (MIG is used to describe the RPC calls, and the stub code it generates handles calling the appropriate Mach-message sending and receiving code; there are special options to generate kernel-mode stubs).
However, it doesn't need to do any lookups, as automountd (the user-mode daemon to which the autofs kext sends messages) has a "host special port" assigned to it. Doing the lookups to find an arbitrary service would be harder.
If you want to use the socket established with ctl_register() on the KExt side, then beware: The communication from kext to user space (via ctl_enqueuedata()) works OK. However opposite direction is buggy on 10.5.x and 10.6.x.
After about 70.000 or 80.000 send() calls with SOCK_DGRAM in the PF_SYSTEM domain complete net stack breaks with disastrous consequences for complete system (hard turning off is the only way out). This has been fixed in 10.7.0. I workaround by using setsockopt() in our project for the direction from user space to kext as we only send very small data (just to allow/disallow some operation).
I am trying to handle SSL error scenarios where, for example, SSL async_handshake() is taking too long.
After some time (say 20sec) i want to close this connection (lowest_layer().close()).
I pass shared_ptr with connection object as a parameter to async_handshake(), so object still exists, eventually handshake handler is invoked and object gets destroyed.
But, still I'm getting sporadic crashes! Looks like after close() SSL is still trying to read or operate on read buffer.
So, the basic question - is it safe to hard close() SSL connection?
Any ideas?
Typically the method I've used stop outstanding asynchronous operations on a socket is socket::cancel as described in the documentation. Their handlers will be invoked with asio::error::operation_aborted as the error parameter, which you'll need to handle somehow.
That said, I don't see a problem using close instead of cancel. Though it is difficult to offer much help or advice without some code to analyze.
Note that some Windows platforms have problems when canceling outstanding asynchronous operations. The documentation has suggestions for portable cancelation if your application needs to support Windows.
We have a fairly standard client/server application built using MS RPC. Both client and server are implemented in C++. The client establishes a session to the server, then makes repeated calls to it over a period of time before finally closing the session.
Periodically, however, especially under heavy load conditions, we are seeing an RPC exception show up with code 1754: RPC_S_NOTHING_TO_EXPORT.
It appears that this happens in the middle of a session. The user is logged on for a while, making successful calls, then one of the calls inexplicably returns this error. As far as we can tell, the server receives no indication that anything went wrong - and it definitely doesn't see the call the client made.
The error code appears to have permanent implications, as well. Having the client retry the connection doesn't work, either. However, if the user has multiple user sessions active simultaneously between the same client and server, the other connections are unaffected.
In essence, I have two questions:
Does anyone know what RPC_S_NOTHING_TO_EXPORT means? The MSDN documentation simply says: "No interfaces have been exported." ... Huh? The session was working fine for numerous instances of the same call up until this point...
Does anyone have any ideas as to how to identify the real problem? Note: Capturing network traffic is something we would rather avoid, if possible, as the problem is sporadic enough that we would likely go through multiple gigabytes of traffic before running into an occurrence.
Capturing network traffic would be one of the best ways to tackle this issue. If you can't do that, could you dump the client process and debug with WinDBG or Visual Studio? Perhaps compare a dump when operating normally versus in the error state?