On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 3:16 PM, Dave Watson <davejwat...@fb.com> wrote:
> On 07/29/17 01:12 PM, Tom Herbert wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 11:37 AM, Dave Watson <davejwat...@fb.com> wrote:
>> > Add the infrustructure for attaching Upper Layer Protocols (ULPs) over TCP
>> > sockets. Based on a similar infrastructure in tcp_cong. The idea is that
>> > any
>> > ULP can add its own logic by changing the TCP proto_ops structure to its
>> > own
>> > methods.
>> >
>> > Example usage:
>> >
>> > setsockopt(sock, SOL_TCP, TCP_ULP, "tls", sizeof("tls"));
>> >
>> One question: is there a good reason why the ULP infrastructure should
>> just be for TCP sockets. For example, I'd really like to be able
>> something like:
>>
>> setsockopt(sock, SOL_SOCKET, SO_ULP, &ulp_param, sizeof(ulp_param));
>>
>> Where ulp_param is a structure containing the ULP name as well as some
>> ULP specific parameters that are passed to init_ulp. ulp_init could
>> determine whether the socket family is appropriate for the ULP being
>> requested.
>
> Using SOL_SOCKET instead seems reasonable to me. I can see how
> ulp_params could have some use, perhaps at a slight loss in clarity.
> TLS needs its own setsockopts anyway though, for renegotiate for
> example.
I'll post the changes shortly. The reason to include parameters with
the setsockopt is so that we can push the ULP and start operations in
one shot.
Tom
