Re: getsockopt(2)

2018-03-05 Thread Robert Swindells
chris...@astron.com (Christos Zoulas) wrote: >In article , >Robert Swindells wrote: >> >>What is wrong with your idea of updatesockopt(2) ? Or maybe call it >>getsockopt2() and only use it for the "get with extra argument" case. > >I guess

Re: getsockopt(2)

2017-12-23 Thread Christos Zoulas
In article , Robert Swindells wrote: > >What is wrong with your idea of updatesockopt(2) ? Or maybe call it >getsockopt2() and only use it for the "get with extra argument" case. I guess getsockopt2/updatesockopt is not that bad after all. Perhaps

Re: getsockopt(2)

2017-12-18 Thread Robert Swindells
David Holland wrote: >On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 07:21:33PM +, David Holland wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 03:04:32PM +, Robert Swindells wrote: > > > I wrote: > > >> Does anyone know why we don't use the input 'optlen' parameter to the > > >> getsockopt(2)

Re: getsockopt(2)

2017-12-18 Thread David Holland
On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 07:21:33PM +, David Holland wrote: > On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 03:04:32PM +, Robert Swindells wrote: > > I wrote: > >> Does anyone know why we don't use the input 'optlen' parameter to the > >> getsockopt(2) syscall, we do write back to it on return. > >>

Re: getsockopt(2)

2017-12-18 Thread David Holland
On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 03:04:32PM +, Robert Swindells wrote: > I wrote: >> Does anyone know why we don't use the input 'optlen' parameter to the >> getsockopt(2) syscall, we do write back to it on return. >> [...] >> >> There are also lots of places in sctp_usrreq that want to use it.

Re: getsockopt(2)

2017-12-17 Thread Christos Zoulas
In article , Robert Swindells wrote: > >There are about 40 options defined by SCTP. I would need to go through >the list to see how many of them were of which type. > >There isn't any source shared between FreeBSD and NetBSD anymore, their >stack

Re: getsockopt(2)

2017-12-17 Thread Robert Swindells
chris...@astron.com (Christos Zoulas) wrote: >In article , >Robert Swindells wrote: >>Options for NetBSD: >> >> Copy in optval for getsockopt(2): >> >>Pro: Allows "get" of IP_IPSEC_POLICY using original KAME API. >>Con: Diverges from

Re: getsockopt(2)

2017-12-14 Thread Christos Zoulas
In article , Robert Swindells wrote: > >chris...@astron.com (Christos Zoulas) wrote: >>In article , >>Robert Swindells wrote: >>> >>>chris...@astron.com (Christos Zoulas) wrote: In article

Re: getsockopt(2)

2017-12-13 Thread Robert Swindells
chris...@astron.com (Christos Zoulas) wrote: >In article , >Robert Swindells wrote: >> >>chris...@astron.com (Christos Zoulas) wrote: >>>In article , >>>Robert Swindells wrote:

Re: getsockopt(2)

2017-12-12 Thread Christos Zoulas
In article , Robert Swindells wrote: > >chris...@astron.com (Christos Zoulas) wrote: >>In article , >>Robert Swindells wrote: >>> >>>chris...@astron.com (Christos Zoulas) wrote: In article

Re: getsockopt(2)

2017-12-11 Thread Robert Swindells
chris...@astron.com (Christos Zoulas) wrote: >In article , >Robert Swindells wrote: >> >>chris...@astron.com (Christos Zoulas) wrote: >>>In article , >>> >>>So depending on the contents of the sockval we do something

Re: getsockopt(2)

2017-12-11 Thread Christos Zoulas
In article , Robert Swindells wrote: > >chris...@astron.com (Christos Zoulas) wrote: >>In article , >> >>So depending on the contents of the sockval we do something different? > >FreeBSD does. The calls to copy in or

Re: getsockopt(2)

2017-12-11 Thread Robert Swindells
chris...@astron.com (Christos Zoulas) wrote: >In article , >Robert Swindells wrote: >> >>I wrote: >>>Does anyone know why we don't use the input 'optlen' parameter to the >>>getsockopt(2) syscall, we do write back to it on return. >>> >>>In

Re: getsockopt(2)

2017-12-08 Thread Christos Zoulas
In article , Robert Swindells wrote: > >I wrote: >>Does anyone know why we don't use the input 'optlen' parameter to the >>getsockopt(2) syscall, we do write back to it on return. >> >>In ip_output() there is this, which suggests that someone had

Re: getsockopt(2)

2017-12-07 Thread Robert Swindells
I wrote: >Does anyone know why we don't use the input 'optlen' parameter to the >getsockopt(2) syscall, we do write back to it on return. > >In ip_output() there is this, which suggests that someone had come >across this before. > >#if 0 /* defined(IPSEC) */ >case

Re: getsockopt(2)

2017-10-16 Thread Robert Swindells
chris...@astron.com (Christos Zoulas) wrote: >In article , >Robert Swindells wrote: >> >>chris...@astron.com (Christos Zoulas) wrote: >>>In article , >>>Robert Swindells wrote: I wrote:

Re: getsockopt(2)

2017-10-16 Thread Christos Zoulas
In article , Robert Swindells wrote: > >chris...@astron.com (Christos Zoulas) wrote: >>In article , >>Robert Swindells wrote: >>> >>>I wrote: Does anyone know why we don't use the input 'optlen'

Re: getsockopt(2)

2017-10-16 Thread Robert Swindells
chris...@astron.com (Christos Zoulas) wrote: >In article , >Robert Swindells wrote: >> >>I wrote: >>>Does anyone know why we don't use the input 'optlen' parameter to the >>>getsockopt(2) syscall, we do write back to it on return. [snip]

Re: getsockopt(2)

2017-10-15 Thread Christos Zoulas
In article , Robert Swindells wrote: > >I wrote: >>Does anyone know why we don't use the input 'optlen' parameter to the >>getsockopt(2) syscall, we do write back to it on return. >> >>In ip_output() there is this, which suggests that someone had

Re: getsockopt(2)

2017-10-14 Thread Robert Swindells
I wrote: >Does anyone know why we don't use the input 'optlen' parameter to the >getsockopt(2) syscall, we do write back to it on return. > >In ip_output() there is this, which suggests that someone had come >across this before. > >#if 0 /* defined(IPSEC) */ >case