[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110413114709.32f5931e@nehalam>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 11:47:09 -0700
From: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: dbaluta@...acom.com, eric.dumazet@...il.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
bugzilla-daemon@...zilla.kernel.org,
bugme-daemon@...zilla.kernel.org, kees@...flux.net
Subject: Re: [Bugme-new] [Bug 32832] New: shutdown(2) does not fully shut
down socket any more
On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 10:43:17 -0700 (PDT)
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
> From: Daniel Baluta <dbaluta@...acom.com>
> Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 14:57:18 +0300
>
> > Cyril's use case looks suspect. I don't think that this is a good
> > reason for reverting this commit.
>
> I complete disagree.
>
> Something that worked perfectly fine, probably for years, we broke.
>
> We simply cannot do that, especially since we do not have a reasonable
> alternative at this time.
>
> Adding SO_REUSEPORT is a long range option, and not something that
> will provide a fix for users right now.
>
> So please don't even pretend to suggest that we shouldn't fix this
> with a revert unless a simple, obvious, kernel fix presents itself.
Just to echo what Dave said.
Even though the semantics of this is not documented in some standard,
applications have been built on Linux expecting a certain behavior.
If you want to change what happens in this case, you have to have a
really good reason (like crash, security hole, or standards violation).
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists