From: Eddie Kohler <kohler@cs.ucla.edu>
To: dccp@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Proposed socket API change
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 06:07:02 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4503AB86.3090208@cs.ucla.edu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200609081031.41701@strip-the-willow>
Last time, vger ate this reply as possible spam, trying again.
Well, here's what I think about service codes. I think I speak for the
authors here. This has all been said previously on the list FWIW.
* I think service codes should be part of the sockaddr for DCCP. The decision
to make them a setsockopt() I think has made things harder. From 9/9/05:
> I agree with Arnaldo et al. here. The Service Code should be considered
similar to a port. It is best to specify it at bind() time, rather than
separately. The structure names may want some updating; sockaddr_in_dccp and
sockaddr_in6_dccp, rather than sockaddr_dccp, for example. The servicecode
member should finish off the structure, so that sockaddr_in is a prefix of
sockaddr_in_dccp. And the code should be smart enough to supply a 0 service
code if the sa_len corresponds to sockaddr_in instead of sockaddr_in_dccp.
* I am fine with the default service code being 0. 11/23/05:
> Again, there's always Service Code 0, which "represents the absence of a
meaningful Service Code". This should be the default, if you desperately want
a default.
* I am NOT fine, and have never been fine, with 0 acting as a *wildcard* in
any way. Service code 0 acts like a specific service code in every way: if a
Request with Service Code 1 arrived at a listening socket with Service Code 0,
then the Request would be rejected with Bad Service Code. Likewise, if a
Request with SC 0 arrived at a listening socket with SC 1, the Request would
be rejected with Bad Service Code.
So to summarize, a default SC of 0 is fine, for either listening or active
sockets, although we still think people should use real service codes. If the
following comment suggests woildcarding, then that's not fine.
> So as to not compromise listening sockets, I was thinking of treating an
`uninitialized' 0 on a server socket different from a service code = 0 which
has been explicitly set by the application.
Eddie
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-09-10 6:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-09-08 9:31 Proposed socket API change gerrit
2006-09-08 9:48 ` Andrea Bittau
2006-09-08 10:49 ` gerrit
2006-09-08 18:08 ` Ian McDonald
2006-09-10 5:23 ` Eddie Kohler
2006-09-10 6:07 ` Eddie Kohler [this message]
2006-09-11 13:30 ` Gerrit Renker
2006-09-11 14:17 ` Gerrit Renker
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=4503AB86.3090208@cs.ucla.edu \
--to=kohler@cs.ucla.edu \
--cc=dccp@vger.kernel.org \
/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.