Sign in to follow this  

SDLNet - Disconnect on Recv(...);?

This topic is 2051 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Recommended Posts

I'm aware I just made a post about SDL_net; however, I have run into a new problem. Packets are sending and getting received. However, when the server receives the data, the client simply disconnects. The SDLNet_TCP_Recv(...); function returns -1. I cannot find the error, for SDLNet_GetError(); isn't working for me(it returns nothing). Has anybody run into this problem before?

My code is below.

//Receiving Code

[CODE]
result = SDLNet_CheckSockets(player_sockSet, 0);
//loop through each client
for(int client = 0; client < maxPlayers; client++) {
//check the socket for activity
int clientSocketActivity = SDLNet_SocketReady(players[client].sock);
if(players[client].connected == true && clientSocketActivity > 0) {
//attempt to read from the socket.
//non-positive return values indicate error
int bytesRecv = SDLNet_TCP_Recv(players[client].sock, msg, 256);

if(bytesRecv > 0) {
//display the result
stringstream ss;
ss << "Received " << bytesRecv << " bytes from client " << client << "!";
consoleOut(ss.str());
}
else {
//there was an error
stringstream ss;
ss << "Player " << client << " has disconnected.";
consoleOut(ss.str());
players[client].connected = false;
connectedPlayers--;

//disconnect the socket
}
}
}
[/CODE]

Please excuse the bad indenting, it's because of copy + paste.

Thanks in advance!
-Ex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It looks like the server falls off the end and exits its process when it receives something.
If it does that, the socket gets automatically closed by the kernel, and the client will be disconnected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='hplus0603' timestamp='1338962697' post='4946664']
It looks like the server falls off the end and exits its process when it receives something.
If it does that, the socket gets automatically closed by the kernel, and the client will be disconnected.
[/quote]

Hmm. That makes sense - any ideas on how I can fix it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would suggest to install a network sniffer like wireshark to see what your connections do.
So you can see who is disconnecting, the client or the server.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Tribad' timestamp='1338965745' post='4946672']
I would suggest to install a network sniffer like wireshark to see what your connections do.
So you can see who is disconnecting, the client or the server.
[/quote]
I already know the client is disconnecting, the server can easily handle more connections.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aha
And what is the servers code posted then. I think that the client code is needed for review. It is absolutely ok that the server gives you a -1 if the client send an RST or FIN. The question is what is wrong in the client code that it closes the connection after sending.
If the client dies before the packet has been processed by the server the client sends a RST. That clears anything that already has been received by the OS socket code. This is why termination should first shutdown, FIN, the connection. This allows the receiver to process any data already received. And if that is done the socket gets closed, RST.

So I would think the client dies and the OS skips the shutdown, FIN, so you are getting a close, RST.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Tribad' timestamp='1338977538' post='4946706']
Aha
And what is the servers code posted then. I think that the client code is needed for review. It is absolutely ok that the server gives you a -1 if the client send an RST or FIN. The question is what is wrong in the client code that it closes the connection after sending.
If the client dies before the packet has been processed by the server the client sends a RST. That clears anything that already has been received by the OS socket code. This is why termination should first shutdown, FIN, the connection. This allows the receiver to process any data already received. And if that is done the socket gets closed, RST.

So I would think the client dies and the OS skips the shutdown, FIN, so you are getting a close, RST.
[/quote]

I am using Telnet as a test client. Therefore, the code problem is with the server.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So I take from your words, that you have not analysed the traffic.
This is only an indication. Only if you analyse the packets transmitted you have knowledge. It is a guess that telnet does not terminate the session at will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Tribad' timestamp='1338983035' post='4946729']
So I take from your words, that you have not analysed the traffic.
This is only an indication. Only if you analyse the packets transmitted you have knowledge. It is a guess that telnet does not terminate the session at will.
[/quote]

It is not a guess; it happened with my game client as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As I said before. You do not analysed the traffic.

This only makes it a better guess.
Between you clients and the server you have the TCP/IP stacks of two machines and the wireing between them. Or if they run on one machine you even have the TCP/IP stack between the two application and the operating system anyways.
If you have a hardware with multiple cores running you have parallel execution of the two applications. That a lot of stuff. And as long as you do not check the traffic between your clients and the server you are only guessing.

You are seeing misbehaviour and you do not have a clue whats wrong. So you worry about whats wrong but you must prove your result. This is how failure analysis is done. And while developing software you will do this all the time. If you are not proving your idea about the failure you cannot exclude things.

What you are doing right now is excluding without knowledge. This is fatal and not best practice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Tribad' timestamp='1339006839' post='4946829']
As I said before. You do not analysed the traffic.

This only makes it a better guess.
Between you clients and the server you have the TCP/IP stacks of two machines and the wireing between them. Or if they run on one machine you even have the TCP/IP stack between the two application and the operating system anyways.
If you have a hardware with multiple cores running you have parallel execution of the two applications. That a lot of stuff. And as long as you do not check the traffic between your clients and the server you are only guessing.

You are seeing misbehaviour and you do not have a clue whats wrong. So you worry about whats wrong but you must prove your result. This is how failure analysis is done. And while developing software you will do this all the time. If you are not proving your idea about the failure you cannot exclude things.

What you are doing right now is excluding without knowledge. This is fatal and not best practice.
[/quote]

"I do not analysed the traffic"....

You have no direct point, Telnet is developed by Microsoft. Both my client and Telnet disconnect when the server receives something. This means the fault is with the server; it cannot be with the client.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You need to bring up the server in a debugger. Put a breakpoint where it receives the data. Look at what it does -- step through each line, until you get to a point where the server either closes the socket, or exits the process. Congratulations! You have now found the point where the server drops the client!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this