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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox