[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1430750197.3711.175.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com>
Date: Mon, 04 May 2015 07:36:37 -0700
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Eric B Munson <emunson@...mai.com>
Cc: Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] tcp: provide SYN headers for passive
connections
On Mon, 2015-05-04 at 07:31 -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-05-04 at 10:21 -0400, Eric B Munson wrote:
>
> > The getsockopt() for TCP_SAVE_SYN doesn't offer much over returning 0
> > from TCP_SAVED_SYN if the headers are not available. Why not collapse
> > these into a single option? If you need to track the difference between
> > the headers are not avialable and should have been and the headers
> > should not be available it can be done through error codes from
> > getsockopt().
>
> A single option is not good, because it adds confusion.
>
> Note that we need to set the bit on any socket state, and doing this
> with a single option is not very easy. ( You got this wrong in your
> patch btw)
Another argument for having two options is for TCP_REPAIR support.
If you want to properly check/restore a socket, including its
TCP_SAVE_SYN state, then you definitely need 2 options.
--
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