I am writing a server that accepts data from a device and processes it. Everything works fine unless there is an interruption in the network (i.e., if I unplug the Ethernet cable, then reconnect it). I'm using read_until() because the protocol that the device uses terminates the packet with a specific sequence of bytes. When the data stream is interrupted, read_until() blocks, as expected. However when the stream starts up again, it remains blocked. If I look at the data stream with Wireshark, the device continues transmitting and each packet is being ACK'ed by the network stack. But if I look at bytes_readable it is always 0. How can I detect the interruption and how to re-establish a connection to the data stream? Below is a code snippet and thanks in advance for any help you can offer. [Go easy on me, this is my first Stack Overflow question....and yes I did try to search for an answer.]
using boost::asio::ip::tcp;
boost::asio::io_service IOservice;
tcp::acceptor acceptor(IOservice, tcp::endpoint(tcp::v4(), listenPort));
tcp::socket socket(IOservice);
acceptor.accept(socket);
for (;;)
{
len = boost::asio::read_until(socket, sbuf, end);
// Process sbuf
// etc.
}
Remember, the client initiates a connection, so the only thing you need to achieve is to re-create the socket and start accepting again. I will keep the format of your snippet but I hope your real code is properly encapsulated.
using SocketType = boost::asio::ip::tcp::socket;
std::unique_ptr<SocketType> CreateSocketAndAccept(
boost::asio::io_service& io_service,
boost::asio::ip::tcp::acceptor& acceptor) {
auto socket = std::make_unique<boost::asio::ip::tcp::socket>(io_service);
boost::system::error_code ec;
acceptor.accept(*socket.get(), ec);
if (ec) {
//TODO: Add handler.
}
return socket;
}
...
auto socket = CreateSocketAndAccept(IOservice, acceptor);
for (;;) {
boost::system::error_code ec;
auto len = boost::asio::read_until(*socket.get(), sbuf, end, ec);
if (ec) // you could be more picky here of course,
// e.g. check against connection_reset, connection_aborted
socket = CreateSocketAndAccept(IOservice, acceptor);
...
}
Footnote: Should go without saying, socket needs to stay in scope.
Edit: Based on the comments bellow.
The listening socket itself does not know whether a client is silent or whether it got cut off. All operations, especially synchronous, should impose a time limit on completion. Consider setting SO_RCVTIMEO or SO_KEEPALIVE (per socket, or system wide, for more info How to use SO_KEEPALIVE option properly to detect that the client at the other end is down?).
Another option is to go async and implement a full fledged "shared" socket server (BOOST example page is a great start).
Either way, you might run into data consistency issues and be forced to deal with it, e.g. when the client detects an interrupted connection, it would resend the data. (or something more complex using higher level protocols)
If you want to stay synchronous, the way I've seen things handled is to destroy the socket when you detect an interruption. The blocking call should throw an exception that you can catch and then start accepting connections again.
for (;;)
{
try {
len = boost::asio::read_until(socket, sbuf, end);
// Process sbuf
// etc.
}
catch (const boost::system::system_error& e) {
// clean up. Start accepting new connections.
}
}
As Tom mentions in his answer, there is no difference between inactivity and ungraceful disconnection so you need an external mechanism to detect this.
If you're expecting continuous data transfer, maybe a timeout per connection on the server side is enough. A simple ping could also work. After accepting a connection, ping your client every X seconds and declare the connection dead if he doesn't answer.
Related
I want to accept twice on one socket
That is, I listen on a port (an unconnected socket) and want to get two connected sockets in the end.
Said differently, if I accept twice on the same tcp socket, I'm having trouble grokking how to distinguish between the two connected sockets in asio. This is on linux.
I have a relatively simple tcp server class. It assumes that all clients that might connect to it are homogeneous: if a message is waiting to go to a client and none is connected, it can be sent to the next client that does connect. This works great with one connected socket, but now I need to listen on more than one socket (that is, two clients will connect). The homogeneity assumption is still almost true, but now I have the additional constraint that if a message is in response to someone, it should go to that someone. (Replies are often acknowledgements.)
I start by listening and accepting:
short port = kSomethingKnown;
boost::asio::io_service& io_service_;
boost::asio::ip::tcp::socket socket_(io_service_);
boost::asio::ip::tcp::acceptor acceptor_(
io_service_,
boost::asio::ip::tcp::endpoint(tcp::v4(), port));
acceptor_.async_accept(socket_, [this](boost::system::error_code ec) {
if (ec) {
// Failed to accept. Schedule to try again (not shown).
return;
}
// Accepted.
SendMessage(); // Flush any old messages, appropriate with a single client.
ReceiveHeader();
});
Comparison to the BSD socket interface
I'll explain the rest below, but this illustrates the main point. ACCEPT(2) looks like this:
int accept(int sockfd, struct sockaddr *addr, socklen_t *addrlen);
The return value, if non-zero, is the file descriptor of the connected socket. That is, if I'm on host H and listening on port P, then sockfd represents an unconnected socket,
(H, P, tcp, 0, 0)
and the file descriptor returned represents a connected socket,
(H, P, tcp, H1, P1)
where H1 is the client host and P1 is the (probably ephemeral) port on the client that is the other side of this socket. If I successfully accept a second time, I'll get another connected socket,
(H, P, tcp, H2, P2)
where at least one of H2 and P2 is different than H1 and P1. I don't see in asio how to refer to these two connected sockets. I've been reading source code, which is teaching me a great deal about how asio works but not how async_accept works.
Ancillary details
Fwiw, here are the details on the send and receive calls, but I think the above is what I really need. Once I understand that, then I use those connected sockets instead of socket_.
SendMessage() exists in a form that takes a message (just pushes it on a deque) and the form above that processes the queue. That second form looks like this:
void SendMessage() {
if (WeAreDead()) {
// This checked that the connection seems valid,
// we aren't being asked to shut down, etc.
return;
}
if (send_queue_.empty()) {
// Nothing to send.
return;
}
boost::asio::async_write(
socket_, boost::asio::buffer(send_queue_.front()),
[this](boost::system::error_code ec, size_t length) {
if (ec) {
// Failed, schedule another attempt, not shown here.
return;
}
send_queue_.pop_front();
if (!send_queue_.empty()) {
SendMessage();
}
});
}
The ReceiveHeader() (and a similar ReceiveBody()) look similar, with the key bit being a call that looks like this:
boost::asio::async_read(
socket_, boost::asio::buffer(receive_buffer_, kTcpHeaderSize),
boost::asio::transfer_exactly(kTcpHeaderSize),
[this](boost::system::error_code ec, std::size_t received_length) {
Again, the part that I'm finding confusing is related to async_accept().
You can do it like this:
acceptor_.async_accept(
[this] (std::error_code ec, tcp::socket&& new_socket) {
In this case you get a new_socket object, which represents the accepted connection. I have taken it from this example.
I hope I understood your question correctly.
Consider this piece of code opening a socket using bost and sending some data:
boost::asio::io_service service;
tcp::resolver resolver(service);
tcp::resolver::query query(tcp::v4(), "localhost", 2000);
tcp::resolver::iterator iterator = resolver.resolve( query );
boost::asio::ip::tcp::socket socket(service);
socket.connect(*iterator);
boost::asio::write(socket, boost::asio::buffer(data, size));
If the receiver is coded in C++ with boost it can receive the data. However, we are trying to receive the data from Matlab, and this one does not receive the data:
t=tcpip('localhost', 2000, 'NetworkRole', 'server');
fopen(t);
// Now we launch the C++ code above from another process
// Now t.BytesAvailable remains 0
To have the data be received, we need to insert a sleep between socket.connect and boost::asio::write, then it works well (as this post mentioned it https://stackoverflow.com/a/20274486/3336423....).
I really hate having to do that (add sleep in my code). Is there any alternative? Is there a sort of is_ready attribute or something similar I could use to know when I can send the data and be sure the listener will get it?
Extra bonus question: Is it a kind of Matlab bug? As sleep is not needed when receiver is a C++/boost application....does only Matlab need this sleep to be operated in order to receive the first set of data transmitted?
I agree with the analysis on that linked answer, and it very much appears that Matlab is being buggy.
There's not going to be a solution to that unless you can fix the server (or if Matlab documents a protocol to reliable start the communications)
Note: you can use Asio to do asynchronous IO operations. It also comes with a deadline timer. So, if your gripe is that sleep blocks operations, that can be circumvented with slightly more complicated asynchronous calls.
I use a blocking FSocket in client-side that connected to tcp server, if there's no message from server, socket thread would block in function FScoket::Recv(), if TCP server shutdown, socket thread is still blocking in this function. but when use blocking socket of BSD Socket API, thread would pass from recv function and return errno when TCP server shutdown, so is it the defect of FSocket?
uint32 HRecvThread::Run()
{
uint8* recv_buf = new uint8[RECV_BUF_SIZE];
uint8* const recv_buf_head = recv_buf;
int readLenSeq = 0;
while (Started)
{
//if (TcpClient->Connected() && ClientSocket->GetConnectionState() != SCS_Connected)
//{
// // server disconnected
// TcpClient->SetConnected(false);
// break;
//}
int32 bytesRead = 0;
//because use blocking socket, so thread would block in Recv function if have no message
ClientSocket->Recv(recv_buf, readLenSeq, bytesRead);
.....
//some logic of resolution for tcp msg bytes
.....
}
delete[] recv_buf;
return 0
}
As I expected, you are ignoring the return code, which presumably indicates success or failure, so you are looping indefinitely (not blocking) on an error or end of stream condition.
NB You should allocate the recv_buf on the stack, not dynamically. Don't use the heap when you don't have to.
There is a similar question on the forums in the UE4 C++ Programming section. Here is the discussion:
https://forums.unrealengine.com/showthread.php?111552-Recv-function-would-keep-blocking-when-TCP-server-shutdown
Long story short, in the UE4 Source, they ignore EWOULDBLOCK as an error. The code comments state that they do not view it as an error.
Also, there are several helper functions you should be using when opening the port and when polling the port (I assume you are polling since you are using blocking calls)
FSocket::Connect returns a bool, so make sure to check that return
value.
FSocket::GetLastError returns the UE4 Translated error code if an
error occured with the socket.
FSocket::HasPendingData will return a value that informs you if it
is safe to read from the socket.
FSocket::HasPendingConnection can check to see your connection state.
FSocket::GetConnectionState will tell you your active connection state.
Using these helper functions for error checking before making a call to FSocket::Recv will help you make sure you are in a good state before trying to read data. Also, it was noted in the forum posts that using the non-blocking code worked as expected. So, if you do not have a specific reason to use blocking code, just use the non-blocking implementation.
Also, as a final hint, using FSocket::Wait will block until your socket is in a desirable state of your choosing with a timeout, i.e. is readable or has data.
When you use the simple ZeroMQ REQ/REP pattern you depend on a fixed send()->recv() / recv()->send() sequence.
As this article describes you get into trouble when a participant disconnects in the middle of a request because then you can't just start over with receiving the next request from another connection but the state machine would force you to send a request to the disconnected one.
Has there emerged a more elegant way to solve this since the mentioned article has been written?
Is reconnecting the only way to solve this (apart from not using REQ/REP but use another pattern)
As the accepted answer seem so terribly sad to me, I did some research and have found that everything we need was actually in the documentation.
The .setsockopt() with the correct parameter can help you resetting your socket state-machine without brutally destroy it and rebuild another on top of the previous one dead body.
(yeah I like the image).
ZMQ_REQ_CORRELATE: match replies with requests
The default behaviour of REQ sockets is to rely on the ordering of messages to match requests and responses and that is usually sufficient. When this option is set to 1, the REQ socket will prefix outgoing messages with an extra frame containing a request id. That means the full message is (request id, 0, user frames…). The REQ socket will discard all incoming messages that don't begin with these two frames.
Option value type int
Option value unit 0, 1
Default value 0
Applicable socket types ZMQ_REQ
ZMQ_REQ_RELAXED: relax strict alternation between request and reply
By default, a REQ socket does not allow initiating a new request with zmq_send(3) until the reply to the previous one has been received. When set to 1, sending another message is allowed and has the effect of disconnecting the underlying connection to the peer from which the reply was expected, triggering a reconnection attempt on transports that support it. The request-reply state machine is reset and a new request is sent to the next available peer.
If set to 1, also enable ZMQ_REQ_CORRELATE to ensure correct matching of requests and replies. Otherwise a late reply to an aborted request can be reported as the reply to the superseding request.
Option value type int
Option value unit 0, 1
Default value 0
Applicable socket types ZMQ_REQ
A complete documentation is here
The good news is that, as of ZMQ 3.0 and later (the modern era), you can set a timeout on a socket. As others have noted elsewhere, you must do this after you have created the socket, but before you connect it:
zmq_req_socket.setsockopt( zmq.RCVTIMEO, 500 ) # milliseconds
Then, when you actually try to receive the reply (after you have sent a message to the REP socket), you can catch the error that will be asserted if the timeout is exceeded:
try:
send( message, 0 )
send_failed = False
except zmq.Again:
logging.warning( "Image send failed." )
send_failed = True
However! When this happens, as observed elsewhere, your socket will be in a funny state, because it will still be expecting the response. At this point, I cannot find anything that works reliably other than just restarting the socket. Note that if you disconnect() the socket and then re connect() it, it will still be in this bad state. Thus you need to
def reset_my_socket:
zmq_req_socket.close()
zmq_req_socket = zmq_context.socket( zmq.REQ )
zmq_req_socket.setsockopt( zmq.RCVTIMEO, 500 ) # milliseconds
zmq_req_socket.connect( zmq_endpoint )
You will also notice that because I close()d the socket, the receive timeout option was "lost", so it is important set that on the new socket.
I hope this helps. And I hope that this does not turn out to be the best answer to this question. :)
There is one solution to this and that is adding timeouts to all calls. Since ZeroMQ by itself does not really provide simple timeout functionality I recommend using a subclass of the ZeroMQ socket that adds a timeout parameter to all important calls.
So, instead of calling s.recv() you would call s.recv(timeout=5.0) and if a response does not come back within that 5 second window it will return None and stop blocking. I had made a futile attempt at this when I run into this problem.
I'm actually looking into this at the moment, because I am retro fitting a legacy system.
I am coming across code constantly that "needs" to know about the state of the connection. However the thing is I want to move to the message passing paradigm that the library promotes.
I found the following function : zmq_socket_monitor
What it does is monitor the socket passed to it and generate events that are then passed to an "inproc" endpoint - at that point you can add handling code to actually do something.
There is also an example (actually test code) here : github
I have not got any specific code to give at the moment (maybe at the end of the week) but my intention is to respond to the connect and disconnects such that I can actually perform any resetting of logic required.
Hope this helps, and despite quoting 4.2 docs, I am using 4.0.4 which seems to have the functionality
as well.
Note I notice you talk about python above, but the question is tagged C++ so that's where my answer is coming from...
Update: I'm updating this answer with this excellent resource here: https://blog.cloudflare.com/when-tcp-sockets-refuse-to-die/ Socket programming is complicated so do checkout the references in this post.
None of the answers here seem accurate or useful. The OP is not looking for information on BSD socket programming. He is trying to figure out how to robustly handle accept()ed client-socket failures in ZMQ on the REP socket to prevent the server from hanging or crashing.
As already noted -- this problem is complicated by the fact that ZMQ tries to pretend that the servers listen()ing socket is the same as an accept()ed socket (and there is no where in the documentation that describes how to set basic timeouts on such sockets.)
My answer:
After doing a lot of digging through the code, the only relevant socket options passed along to accept()ed socks seem to be keep alive options from the parent listen()er. So the solution is to set the following options on the listen socket before calling send or recv:
void zmq_setup(zmq::context_t** context, zmq::socket_t** socket, const char* endpoint)
{
// Free old references.
if(*socket != NULL)
{
(**socket).close();
(**socket).~socket_t();
}
if(*context != NULL)
{
// Shutdown all previous server client-sockets.
zmq_ctx_destroy((*context));
(**context).~context_t();
}
*context = new zmq::context_t(1);
*socket = new zmq::socket_t(**context, ZMQ_REP);
// Enable TCP keep alive.
int is_tcp_keep_alive = 1;
(**socket).setsockopt(ZMQ_TCP_KEEPALIVE, &is_tcp_keep_alive, sizeof(is_tcp_keep_alive));
// Only send 2 probes to check if client is still alive.
int tcp_probe_no = 2;
(**socket).setsockopt(ZMQ_TCP_KEEPALIVE_CNT, &tcp_probe_no, sizeof(tcp_probe_no));
// How long does a con need to be "idle" for in seconds.
int tcp_idle_timeout = 1;
(**socket).setsockopt(ZMQ_TCP_KEEPALIVE_IDLE, &tcp_idle_timeout, sizeof(tcp_idle_timeout));
// Time in seconds between individual keep alive probes.
int tcp_probe_interval = 1;
(**socket).setsockopt(ZMQ_TCP_KEEPALIVE_INTVL, &tcp_probe_interval, sizeof(tcp_probe_interval));
// Discard pending messages in buf on close.
int is_linger = 0;
(**socket).setsockopt(ZMQ_LINGER, &is_linger, sizeof(is_linger));
// TCP user timeout on unacknowledged send buffer
int is_user_timeout = 2;
(**socket).setsockopt(ZMQ_TCP_MAXRT, &is_user_timeout, sizeof(is_user_timeout));
// Start internal enclave event server.
printf("Host: Starting enclave event server\n");
(**socket).bind(endpoint);
}
What this does is tell the operating system to aggressively check the client socket for timeouts and reap them for cleanup when a client doesn't return a heart beat in time. The result is that the OS will send a SIGPIPE back to your program and socket errors will bubble up to send / recv - fixing a hung server. You then need to do two more things:
1. Handle SIGPIPE errors so the program doesn't crash
#include <signal.h>
#include <zmq.hpp>
// zmq_setup def here [...]
int main(int argc, char** argv)
{
// Ignore SIGPIPE signals.
signal(SIGPIPE, SIG_IGN);
// ... rest of your code after
// (Could potentially also restart the server
// sock on N SIGPIPEs if you're paranoid.)
// Start server socket.
const char* endpoint = "tcp://127.0.0.1:47357";
zmq::context_t* context;
zmq::socket_t* socket;
zmq_setup(&context, &socket, endpoint);
// Message buffers.
zmq::message_t request;
zmq::message_t reply;
// ... rest of your socket code here
}
2. Check for -1 returned by send or recv and catch ZMQ errors.
// E.g. skip broken accepted sockets (pseudo-code.)
while (1):
{
try
{
if ((*socket).recv(&request)) == -1)
throw -1;
}
catch (...)
{
// Prevent any endless error loops killing CPU.
sleep(1)
// Reset ZMQ state machine.
try
{
zmq::message_t blank_reply = zmq::message_t();
(*socket).send (blank_reply);
}
catch (...)
{
1;
}
continue;
}
Notice the weird code that tries to send a reply on a socket failure? In ZMQ, a REP server "socket" is an endpoint to another program making a REQ socket to that server. The result is if you go do a recv on a REP socket with a hung client, the server sock becomes stuck in a broken receive loop where it will wait forever to receive a valid reply.
To force an update on the state machine, you try send a reply. ZMQ detects that the socket is broken, and removes it from its queue. The server socket becomes "unstuck", and the next recv call returns a new client from the queue.
To enable timeouts on an async client (in Python 3), the code would look something like this:
import asyncio
import zmq
import zmq.asyncio
#asyncio.coroutine
def req(endpoint):
ms = 2000 # In milliseconds.
sock = ctx.socket(zmq.REQ)
sock.setsockopt(zmq.SNDTIMEO, ms)
sock.setsockopt(zmq.RCVTIMEO, ms)
sock.setsockopt(zmq.LINGER, ms) # Discard pending buffered socket messages on close().
sock.setsockopt(zmq.CONNECT_TIMEOUT, ms)
# Connect the socket.
# Connections don't strictly happen here.
# ZMQ waits until the socket is used (which is confusing, I know.)
sock.connect(endpoint)
# Send some bytes.
yield from sock.send(b"some bytes")
# Recv bytes and convert to unicode.
msg = yield from sock.recv()
msg = msg.decode(u"utf-8")
Now you have some failure scenarios when something goes wrong.
By the way -- if anyone's curious -- the default value for TCP idle timeout in Linux seems to be 7200 seconds or 2 hours. So you would be waiting a long time for a hung server to do anything!
Sources:
https://github.com/zeromq/libzmq/blob/84dc40dd90fdc59b91cb011a14c1abb79b01b726/src/tcp_listener.cpp#L82 TCP keep alive options preserved for client sock
http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/html_single/TCP-Keepalive-HOWTO/ How does keep alive work
https://github.com/zeromq/libzmq/blob/master/builds/zos/README.md Handling sig pipe errors
https://github.com/zeromq/libzmq/issues/2586 for information on closing sockets
https://blog.cloudflare.com/when-tcp-sockets-refuse-to-die/
https://github.com/zeromq/libzmq/issues/976
Disclaimer:
I've tested this code and it seems to be working, but ZMQ does complicate testing this a fair bit because the client re-connects on failure? If anyone wants to use this solution in production, I recommend writing some basic unit tests, first.
The server code could also be improved a lot with threading or polling to be able to handle multiple clients at once. As it stands, a malicious client can temporarily take up resources from the server (3 second timeout) which isn't ideal.
I want to verify the connection status before performing read/write operations.
Is there a way to make an isConnect() method?
I saw this, but it seems "ugly".
I have tested is_open() function as well, but it doesn't have the expected behavior.
TCP is meant to be robust in the face of a harsh network; even though TCP provides what looks like a persistent end-to-end connection, it's all just a lie, each packet is really just a unique, unreliable datagram.
The connections are really just virtual conduits created with a little state tracked at each end of the connection (Source and destination ports and addresses, and local socket). The network stack uses this state to know which process to give each incoming packet to and what state to put in the header of each outgoing packet.
Because of the underlying — inherently connectionless and unreliable — nature of the network, the stack will only report a severed connection when the remote end sends a FIN packet to close the connection, or if it doesn't receive an ACK response to a sent packet (after a timeout and a couple retries).
Because of the asynchronous nature of asio, the easiest way to be notified of a graceful disconnection is to have an outstanding async_read which will return error::eof immediately when the connection is closed. But this alone still leaves the possibility of other issues like half-open connections and network issues going undetected.
The most effectively way to work around unexpected connection interruption is to use some sort of keep-alive or ping. This occasional attempt to transfer data over the connection will allow expedient detection of an unintentionally severed connection.
The TCP protocol actually has a built-in keep-alive mechanism which can be configured in asio using asio::tcp::socket::keep_alive. The nice thing about TCP keep-alive is that it's transparent to the user-mode application, and only the peers interested in keep-alive need configure it. The downside is that you need OS level access/knowledge to configure the timeout parameters, they're unfortunately not exposed via a simple socket option and usually have default timeout values that are quite large (7200 seconds on Linux).
Probably the most common method of keep-alive is to implement it at the application layer, where the application has a special noop or ping message and does nothing but respond when tickled. This method gives you the most flexibility in implementing a keep-alive strategy.
TCP promises to watch for dropped packets -- retrying as appropriate -- to give you a reliable connection, for some definition of reliable. Of course TCP can't handle cases where the server crashes, or your Ethernet cable falls out or something similar occurs. Additionally, knowing that your TCP connection is up doesn't necessarily mean that a protocol that will go over the TCP connection is ready (eg., your HTTP webserver or your FTP server may be in some broken state).
If you know the protocol being sent over TCP then there is probably a way in that protocol to tell you if things are in good shape (for HTTP it would be a HEAD request)
If you are sure that the remote socket has not sent anything (e.g. because you haven't sent a request to it yet), then you can set your local socket to a non blocking mode and try to read one or more bytes from it.
Given that the server hasn't sent anything, you'll either get a asio::error::would_block or some other error. If former, your local socket has not yet detected a disconnection. If latter, your socket has been closed.
Here is an example code:
#include <iostream>
#include <boost/asio.hpp>
#include <boost/asio/spawn.hpp>
#include <boost/asio/steady_timer.hpp>
using namespace std;
using namespace boost;
using tcp = asio::ip::tcp;
template<class Duration>
void async_sleep(asio::io_service& ios, Duration d, asio::yield_context yield)
{
auto timer = asio::steady_timer(ios);
timer.expires_from_now(d);
timer.async_wait(yield);
}
int main()
{
asio::io_service ios;
tcp::acceptor acceptor(ios, tcp::endpoint(tcp::v4(), 0));
boost::asio::spawn(ios, [&](boost::asio::yield_context yield) {
tcp::socket s(ios);
acceptor.async_accept(s, yield);
// Keep the socket from going out of scope for 5 seconds.
async_sleep(ios, chrono::seconds(5), yield);
});
boost::asio::spawn(ios, [&](boost::asio::yield_context yield) {
tcp::socket s(ios);
s.async_connect(acceptor.local_endpoint(), yield);
// This is essential to make the `read_some` function not block.
s.non_blocking(true);
while (true) {
system::error_code ec;
char c;
// Unfortunately, this only works when the buffer has non
// zero size (tested on Ubuntu 16.04).
s.read_some(asio::mutable_buffer(&c, 1), ec);
if (ec && ec != asio::error::would_block) break;
cerr << "Socket is still connected" << endl;
async_sleep(ios, chrono::seconds(1), yield);
}
cerr << "Socket is closed" << endl;
});
ios.run();
}
And the output:
Socket is still connected
Socket is still connected
Socket is still connected
Socket is still connected
Socket is still connected
Socket is closed
Tested on:
Ubuntu: 16.04
Kernel: 4.15.0-36-generic
Boost: 1.67
Though, I don't know whether or not this behavior depends on any of those versions.
you can send a dummy byte on a socket and see if it will return an error.