From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Philip Prindeville Subject: Re: setsockopt(IP_TOS) being privileged or distinct capability? Date: Mon, 05 Jul 2010 12:08:17 -0600 Message-ID: <4C321F91.90304@redfish-solutions.com> References: <4C2F7A55.5090700@redfish-solutions.com> <2md4g7-3s3.ln1@chipmunk.wormnet.eu> <4C2FC2C8.8080203@redfish-solutions.com> <20100703234813.GJ24655@chipmunk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Alexander Clouter Return-path: Received: from mail.redfish-solutions.com ([66.232.79.143]:53512 "EHLO mail.redfish-solutions.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751695Ab0GESIV (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Jul 2010 14:08:21 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20100703234813.GJ24655@chipmunk> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Say, on a slightly different subject... but still having to do with setsockopt(IP_TOS)... is it intentional that system call effectively does nothing if the socket is in listen(), connect(), or bind() states? In other words, you have to issue the setsockopt() immediately after the socket() call, or it doesn't do anything. As I remember, that's slightly different semantics from BSD, which allows you to change the markings on a bound or listening socket. I've not walked through the kernel sources to see why this is. -Philip