From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: add sysctl allow_so_priority for SO_PRIORITY setsockopt Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 02:58:36 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <20111022.025836.1306779710775525629.davem@davemloft.net> References: <1319235725-3046-1-git-send-email-zenczykowski@gmail.com> <20111022.000406.350185785547409199.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=iso-8859-2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org To: zenczykowski@gmail.com Return-path: Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([198.137.202.13]:38278 "EHLO shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751639Ab1JVG6l convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Sat, 22 Oct 2011 02:58:41 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: =46rom: Maciej =AFenczykowski Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 23:49:00 -0700 > However, processes can also manually override the sk_priority by call= ing > SO_PRIORITY directly, at which point their IP_TOS and SO_PRIORITY no > longer match. >=20 > This patch allows you to disable this ability. I also don't see why we'd want to allow disabling this either. I really hate these patches that offer ways to disable things that normally work, and thus break apps when the non-default is selected. I kind of have a feeling the kind of situation you're trying to account for, you have some cloud where people run random stuff that you don't control. But you didn't specify this, and we just have to guess. Why don't you describe the specific situation where you want to modify this setting? Please do this instead of just talking about what the side effects are inside of the kernel. That's much less interesting when it comes to patches like this.