Re: [PATCH] SO_ZEROCOPY should rather return -ENOPROTOOPT

[Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@labri.fr>]

Hello,

Willem de Bruijn, le mar. 01 mars 2022 10:21:41 -0500, a ecrit:
> > > > > > @@ -1377,9 +1377,9 @@ int sock_setsockopt(struct socket *sock, int level, int optname,
> > > > > >                         if (!(sk_is_tcp(sk) ||
> > > > > >                               (sk->sk_type == SOCK_DGRAM &&
> > > > > >                                sk->sk_protocol == IPPROTO_UDP)))
> > > > > > -                               ret = -ENOTSUPP;
> > > > > > +                               ret = -ENOPROTOOPT;
> > > > > >                 } else if (sk->sk_family != PF_RDS) {
> > > > > > -                       ret = -ENOTSUPP;
> > > > > > +                       ret = -ENOPROTOOPT;
> > > > > >                 }
> > > > > >                 if (!ret) {
> > > > > >                         if (val < 0 || val > 1)
> > > > >
> > > > > That should have been a public error code. Perhaps rather EOPNOTSUPP.
> > > > >
> > > > > The problem with a change now is that it will confuse existing
> > > > > applications that check for -524 (ENOTSUPP).
> > > >
> > > > They were not supposed to hardcord -524...
> > > >
> > > > Actually, they already had to check against EOPNOTSUPP to support older
> > > > kernels, so EOPNOTSUPP is not supposed to pose a problem.
> > >
> > > Which older kernels returned EOPNOTSUPP on SO_ZEROCOPY?
> >
> > Sorry, bad copy/paste, I meant ENOPROTOOPT.
> 
> Same point though, right? These are not legacy concerns, but specific
> to applications written to SO_ZEROCOPY.
> 
> I expect that most will just ignore the exact error code and will work
> with either.

Ok, so, is this an Acked-by: you? :)

Samuel