Re: [PATCH net-next 0/5] SCTP updates

[Michael Tuexen <Michael.Tuexen@lurchi.franken.de>]

On 09 Jul 2014, at 18:02, David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM> wrote:

> From: Neil Horman
> ...
>>> The problem here is deprecation of ancillary data and that's is a lot tougher
>>> then socket options.  In this particular case (SCTP_SNDRCVINFO vs SCTP_RCVINFO),
>>> I don't think there is any way to deprecate the SCTP_SNDRCVINFO since the event
>>> enabling it is the same as the one for SCTP_RCVINFO.  This was a mistake in the
I don't think this is true:
To request SCTP_SNDRCVINFO you use the SCTP_EVENTS option. See
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6458#section-6.2.1
To request the SCTP_RCVINFO you use the SCTP_RECVRCVINFO option. See
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6458#section-8.1.29
So the user does different things and the kernel can provide the requested
information.

Best regards
Michael
>>> spec.  Ancillary data should not have been enabled using even notification api,
>>> as it is not an event, but we now have to live with it.
>>> 
>> Ugh I didn't even consider cmsg type overlap.  Thats probably it then, we can't
>> deprecate it.  Though that does call the question up as to how to differentiate
>> expectations of the data format for each cmsg, if they use the same type.  Does
>> the SCTP_RCVINFO data struct overlay the SNDRCVINFO struct exactly?  (sorry I've
>> not checked myself yet).
> 
> Not from what I remember from when I read that RFC.
> I think the lengths are different enough to determine which is which.
> 
> That RFC (I've forgotten the number) looks like an entire bag of poo
> that should be ignored...
> 
> 	David
> 
> 
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sctp" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>