All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: 'Marcelo Ricardo Leitner' <marcelo.leitner@gmail.com>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@aculab.com>
Cc: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
	"julien@arista.com" <julien@arista.com>,
	"netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org" <linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"nhorman@tuxdriver.com" <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>,
	"vyasevich@gmail.com" <vyasevich@gmail.com>,
	"lucien.xin@gmail.com" <lucien.xin@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] sctp: make sctp_setsockopt_events() less strict about the option length
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 15:23:39 -0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190213172339.GJ13621@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <71e3d64ae3d44e499f3fb9f876398ee4@AcuMS.aculab.com>

On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 04:17:41PM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> From: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
> > Sent: 10 February 2019 20:16
> ...
> > We have issues on read path too. 52ccb8e90c0a ("[SCTP]: Update
> > SCTP_PEER_ADDR_PARAMS socket option to the latest api draft.")
> > extended struct sctp_paddrparams and its getsockopt goes with:
> 
> The API shouldn't change like this at all.
> Is this from the RFC or elsewhere??

I would think so. That commit is from 2005, pretty close to initial
SCTP RFCs.

> 
> If the structure changes the socket option name and value
> should also change.

That's what is at the core of this thread.

  Marcelo

> 
> IMHO large chunks of the sctp rfc are just horrid.
> In particular all the places where is states that API functions are
> implemented using setsockopt() - that should be an implementation detail.
> Also ISTR that some of the structures are defined to have holes in them...
> 
> 	David
> 
> -
> Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
> Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
> 

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: 'Marcelo Ricardo Leitner' <marcelo.leitner@gmail.com>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@aculab.com>
Cc: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
	"julien@arista.com" <julien@arista.com>,
	"netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org" <linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"nhorman@tuxdriver.com" <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>,
	"vyasevich@gmail.com" <vyasevich@gmail.com>,
	"lucien.xin@gmail.com" <lucien.xin@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] sctp: make sctp_setsockopt_events() less strict about the option length
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 17:23:39 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190213172339.GJ13621@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <71e3d64ae3d44e499f3fb9f876398ee4@AcuMS.aculab.com>

On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 04:17:41PM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> From: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
> > Sent: 10 February 2019 20:16
> ...
> > We have issues on read path too. 52ccb8e90c0a ("[SCTP]: Update
> > SCTP_PEER_ADDR_PARAMS socket option to the latest api draft.")
> > extended struct sctp_paddrparams and its getsockopt goes with:
> 
> The API shouldn't change like this at all.
> Is this from the RFC or elsewhere??

I would think so. That commit is from 2005, pretty close to initial
SCTP RFCs.

> 
> If the structure changes the socket option name and value
> should also change.

That's what is at the core of this thread.

  Marcelo

> 
> IMHO large chunks of the sctp rfc are just horrid.
> In particular all the places where is states that API functions are
> implemented using setsockopt() - that should be an implementation detail.
> Also ISTR that some of the structures are defined to have holes in them...
> 
> 	David
> 
> -
> Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
> Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
> 

  reply	other threads:[~2019-02-13 17:23 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 51+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-02-06 20:14 [PATCH net] sctp: make sctp_setsockopt_events() less strict about the option length Julien Gomes
2019-02-06 20:14 ` Julien Gomes
2019-02-06 20:37 ` Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
2019-02-06 20:37   ` Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
2019-02-06 20:48   ` Julien Gomes
2019-02-06 20:48     ` Julien Gomes
2019-02-06 21:07     ` Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
2019-02-06 21:07       ` Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
2019-02-06 21:23       ` Neil Horman
2019-02-06 21:23         ` Neil Horman
2019-02-06 21:48         ` Julien Gomes
2019-02-06 21:48           ` Julien Gomes
2019-02-07 14:44           ` Neil Horman
2019-02-07 14:44             ` Neil Horman
2019-02-06 21:26       ` Julien Gomes
2019-02-06 21:26         ` Julien Gomes
2019-02-06 21:39         ` Neil Horman
2019-02-06 21:39           ` Neil Horman
2019-02-06 21:48           ` Julien Gomes
2019-02-06 21:48             ` Julien Gomes
2019-02-06 21:53             ` Julien Gomes
2019-02-06 21:53               ` Julien Gomes
2019-02-07 14:48             ` Neil Horman
2019-02-07 14:48               ` Neil Horman
2019-02-07 17:33       ` David Laight
2019-02-07 17:33         ` David Laight
2019-02-07 17:47         ` 'Marcelo Ricardo Leitner'
2019-02-07 17:47           ` 'Marcelo Ricardo Leitner'
2019-02-08  9:53           ` David Laight
2019-02-08  9:53             ` David Laight
2019-02-08 12:36             ` Neil Horman
2019-02-08 12:36               ` Neil Horman
2019-02-06 21:08     ` Neil Horman
2019-02-06 21:08       ` Neil Horman
2019-02-06 21:18       ` Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
2019-02-06 21:18         ` Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
2019-02-09 23:12   ` David Miller
2019-02-09 23:12     ` David Miller
2019-02-10 12:46     ` Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
2019-02-10 12:46       ` Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
2019-02-10 20:15       ` Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
2019-02-10 20:15         ` Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
2019-02-13 16:17         ` David Laight
2019-02-13 17:23           ` 'Marcelo Ricardo Leitner' [this message]
2019-02-13 17:23             ` 'Marcelo Ricardo Leitner'
2019-02-11 15:04       ` Neil Horman
2019-02-11 15:04         ` Neil Horman
2019-02-11 17:05         ` Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
2019-02-11 17:05           ` Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
2019-02-06 20:49 ` Neil Horman
2019-02-06 20:49   ` Neil Horman

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20190213172339.GJ13621@localhost.localdomain \
    --to=marcelo.leitner@gmail.com \
    --cc=David.Laight@aculab.com \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=julien@arista.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lucien.xin@gmail.com \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=nhorman@tuxdriver.com \
    --cc=vyasevich@gmail.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.