[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CADVnQy=8DK3B7HriNXums=NLEehkC9aCLK_uMpE7QmJLP6rNWw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 21:23:14 -0400
From: Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@...gle.com>
To: fgao@...ai8.com
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, gfree.wind@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v2 1/1] net: tcp: Permit user set TCP_MAXSEG to
default value
On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 8:45 PM, <fgao@...ai8.com> wrote:
> diff --git a/net/ipv4/tcp.c b/net/ipv4/tcp.c
> index 1e319a5..4f7f163 100644
> --- a/net/ipv4/tcp.c
> +++ b/net/ipv4/tcp.c
> @@ -2470,7 +2470,7 @@ static int do_tcp_setsockopt(struct sock *sk, int level,
> /* Values greater than interface MTU won't take effect. However
> * at the point when this call is done we typically don't yet
> * know which interface is going to be used */
> - if (val < TCP_MIN_MSS || val > MAX_TCP_WINDOW) {
> + if (!val && (val < TCP_MIN_MSS || val > MAX_TCP_WINDOW)) {
> err = -EINVAL;
> break;
I believe the sense of the val check is flipped in the proposed patch.
I believe Eric suggested:
if (val && (val < TCP_MIN_MSS || val > MAX_TCP_WINDOW)) {
Has this been tested?
neal
Powered by blists - more mailing lists