From: David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>
To: 'Xin Long' <lucien.xin@gmail.com>, Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>
Cc: network dev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org" <linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org>,
Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@gmail.com>,
"davem@davemloft.net" <davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: RE: [PATCHv2 net-next 3/5] sctp: add SCTP_EXPOSE_POTENTIALLY_FAILED_STATE sockopt
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2019 08:49:54 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ae526ae5437349e9bbfdf97286603d94@AcuMS.aculab.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CADvbK_fb9jjm-h-XyVci971Uu=YuwMsUjWEcv9ehUv9Q6W_VxQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Xin Long <lucien.xin@gmail.com>
> Sent: 14 October 2019 09:37
...
> RFC actually keeps adding new notifications,
That RFC keeps moving the goalposts.
Even the structures are guaranteed to have holes.
> and a user shouldn't expect
> the specific notifications coming in some exact orders. They should just
> ignore it and wait until the ones they expect. I don't think some users
> would abort its application when getting an unexpected notification.
I've an example of exactly 1 application.
It uses TCP-style sockets (and will work over TCP).
It does getsockopt(SCTP_EVENTS), sets sctp_association_event, then setsockopt().
Any MSG_NOTIFICATION is assumed to be the a connection reset (enabled above)
and treated as an inwards disconnect.
So any unexpected notification will kill the connection.
I suspect it isn't the only one..
David
-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-10-14 8:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-10-08 11:25 [PATCHv2 net-next 0/5] sctp: update from rfc7829 Xin Long
2019-10-08 11:25 ` [PATCHv2 net-next 1/5] sctp: add SCTP_ADDR_POTENTIALLY_FAILED notification Xin Long
2019-10-08 11:25 ` [PATCHv2 net-next 2/5] sctp: add pf_expose per netns and sock and asoc Xin Long
2019-10-08 11:25 ` [PATCHv2 net-next 3/5] sctp: add SCTP_EXPOSE_POTENTIALLY_FAILED_STATE sockopt Xin Long
2019-10-08 11:25 ` [PATCHv2 net-next 4/5] sctp: add support for Primary Path Switchover Xin Long
2019-10-08 11:25 ` [PATCHv2 net-next 5/5] sctp: add SCTP_PEER_ADDR_THLDS_V2 sockopt Xin Long
2019-10-08 13:02 ` [PATCHv2 net-next 3/5] sctp: add SCTP_EXPOSE_POTENTIALLY_FAILED_STATE sockopt David Laight
2019-10-08 15:28 ` Xin Long
2019-10-09 16:15 ` Neil Horman
2019-10-10 9:28 ` Xin Long
2019-10-10 12:40 ` Neil Horman
2019-10-11 15:57 ` Xin Long
2019-10-11 16:25 ` Xin Long
2019-10-11 21:29 ` Neil Horman
2019-10-14 8:36 ` Xin Long
2019-10-14 8:49 ` David Laight [this message]
2019-10-14 12:41 ` Neil Horman
2019-10-14 13:48 ` David Laight
2019-10-18 15:34 ` [PATCHv2 net-next 2/5] sctp: add pf_expose per netns and sock and asoc David Laight
2019-10-19 8:45 ` Xin Long
2019-10-22 11:29 ` David Laight
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=ae526ae5437349e9bbfdf97286603d94@AcuMS.aculab.com \
--to=david.laight@aculab.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lucien.xin@gmail.com \
--cc=marcelo.leitner@gmail.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nhorman@tuxdriver.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).