When using setsockopt() with recent Linux kernels, it doesn't make sense to
use a value smaller than SOCK_MIN_RCVBUF/2 for SO_RCVBUF and expect getting
a SO_RCVBUF value by getsockopt() which is doubled. See the following code
in linux/net/core/sock.c:
if ((val * 2) < SOCK_MIN_RCVBUF)
sk->sk_rcvbuf = SOCK_MIN_RCVBUF;
else
sk->sk_rcvbuf = val * 2;
break;
SOCK_MIN_RCVBUF is defined as (2048 + sizeof(struct sk_buff)) which is 2240.
---
testcases/network/sctp/func_tests/test_1_to_1_sockopt.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/testcases/network/sctp/func_tests/test_1_to_1_sockopt.c
b/testcases/network/sctp/func_tests/test_1_to_1_sockopt.c
index b12313b..c36f502 100644
--- a/testcases/network/sctp/func_tests/test_1_to_1_sockopt.c
+++ b/testcases/network/sctp/func_tests/test_1_to_1_sockopt.c
@@ -299,9 +299,9 @@ int main(void)
tst_resm(TPASS, "getsockopt() SCTP_STATUS - SUCCESS");
/* Reducing the SO_RCVBUF value using setsockopt() */
- /*Minimum value is 128 and hence I am using it */
len = sizeof(int);
- rcvbuf_val_set = 128;
+ /* (rcvbuf len)*2 should be no less than SOCK_MIN_RCVBUF in kernel */
+ rcvbuf_val_set = 1500;
/* TEST16: Test case for setsockopt SO_RCVBUF */
error = setsockopt(sk2, SOL_SOCKET, SO_RCVBUF, &rcvbuf_val_set, len);
if (error < 0)
--
1.8.1.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Android is increasing in popularity, but the open development platform that
developers love is also attractive to malware creators. Download this white
paper to learn more about secure code signing practices that can help keep
Android apps secure.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=65839951&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Ltp-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list
