On Thu, 10 Sep 2026 08:53:51 GMT, Lee Jiwon <[email protected]> wrote:
> Disable `IP_TOS` support by default in the JDK's default `ServerSocket` > implementation and the corresponding `jdk.net.Sockets` option set. > Applications can restore support with `-Djdk.net.ServerSocket.IP_TOS=true` at > JVM startup. Support on `Socket` and `DatagramSocket` is unchanged. > > Testing on macOS/aarch64: > - Targeted tests passed, including five `SupportedOptions` configurations. > - API Javadoc generation passed. > - Tier 2 reported five locale failures also seen on baseline, one `UdpTest` > timeout also seen with the opt-in changes reverted, and one docs link-check > failure involving missing shared files. Other tests passed or were skipped. > > Linux and Windows test suites were not run. > > The docs link-check failure persisted after `make docs-jdk`; Pandoc is > disabled in this configuration, and no diagnostics referenced the modified > `net-properties.html`. > > Release note: [JDK-8392329](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8392329) > > --------- > - [x] I confirm that I make this contribution in accordance with the [OpenJDK > Interim AI Policy](https://openjdk.org/legal/ai). On macOS, setting the listener IP_TOS to 32 or 128 was reflected by the accepted socket getter for IPv6 loopback and for IPv4 loopback with `-Djava.net.preferIPv4Stack=true`, while an IPv4 loopback connection with the default JVM configuration reported 0. I have not yet checked packet-level behavior or Linux/Windows. Should the loss of this listener-side configuration path be included in the CSR compatibility assessment, and should it be considered together with the possible deprecation of `Socket.setTrafficClass` when deciding the scope of the change? I created a new CSR, [JDK-8392199](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8392199), and moved the proposal there. Could you please review the proposed direction and the updated CSR? I also closed the previous CSR, [JDK-8392124](https://bugs.openjdk.org/projects/JDK/issues/JDK-8392124?filter=allissues). ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/32808#issuecomment-5618540123 PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/32808#issuecomment-5627745700
