From 47efcccdea0223af4f84750bb373fda16b209e79 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Roger Dingledine Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 23:26:21 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] it turns out we weren't looking at the result from getsockopt(). now we do. but i'm not sure it matters, since we also poll for reads, and if there's an error with the connecting socket, poll is supposed to return readable, so we should notice it then. who knows. svn:r2057 --- trunk/src/or/connection.c | 13 +++++++++++-- 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/trunk/src/or/connection.c b/trunk/src/or/connection.c index 4b06f73694..c95b412a5b 100644 --- a/trunk/src/or/connection.c +++ b/trunk/src/or/connection.c @@ -834,9 +834,18 @@ int connection_handle_write(connection_t *conn) { /* Sometimes, "writeable" means "connected". */ if (connection_state_is_connecting(conn)) { if (getsockopt(conn->s, SOL_SOCKET, SO_ERROR, (void*)&e, &len) < 0) { - /* not yet */ + log_fn(LOG_WARN,"getsockopt() syscall failed?! Please report to tor-ops."); + connection_close_immediate(conn); + connection_mark_for_close(conn); + return -1; + } + if(e) { + /* some sort of error, but maybe just inprogress still */ + errno = e; /* XXX008 this is a kludge. maybe we should rearrange + our error-hunting functions? E.g. pass errno to + tor_socket_errno(). */ if(!ERRNO_IS_CONN_EINPROGRESS(tor_socket_errno(conn->s))) { - log_fn(LOG_DEBUG,"in-progress connect failed. Removing."); + log_fn(LOG_INFO,"in-progress connect failed. Removing."); connection_close_immediate(conn); connection_mark_for_close(conn); /* it's safe to pass OPs to router_mark_as_down(), since it just