> There's a race condition where writting data then calling close() may cause the other side to receive no data. This does NOT appoear to happen with TCP sockets, but this doesn't hurt the TCP side in any case.
This might come down to a different default for SO_LINGER for UNIX-domain sockets than for INET{,6}-domain sockets, and possibly Unix-domain sockets not having an equivalent of RST to signal the loss. IIUC, typical best practice anyway is to shut down the sending half then wait for the receiver to shut down the receiver half before closing the socket. It's been almost 20 years(!) since I've played with this, but the behavior you get by just calling close with unsent data at least used to vary by platform anyway with TCP. [1]
This might come down to a different default for SO_LINGER for UNIX-domain sockets than for INET{,6}-domain sockets, and possibly Unix-domain sockets not having an equivalent of RST to signal the loss. IIUC, typical best practice anyway is to shut down the sending half then wait for the receiver to shut down the receiver half before closing the socket. It's been almost 20 years(!) since I've played with this, but the behavior you get by just calling close with unsent data at least used to vary by platform anyway with TCP. [1]
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20060924184856/http://www.slamb....