From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Shan Wei Subject: Re: IPV6_RTHDR with a type-0 routing header Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 09:09:29 +0800 Message-ID: <4A8DF3C9.8000808@cn.fujitsu.com> References: <20090820111152.GA20295@uio.no> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: brian.haley@hp.com, davem@davemloft.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: "Steinar H. Gunderson" Return-path: Received: from cn.fujitsu.com ([222.73.24.84]:57543 "EHLO song.cn.fujitsu.com" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751467AbZHUBJn (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Aug 2009 21:09:43 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20090820111152.GA20295@uio.no> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Steinar H. Gunderson wrote, at 08/20/2009 07:11 PM: > Hi, > > I've tried attaching a type-0 routing header to my IPv6 packets with > setsockopt(..., IPV6_RTHDR, ...), but the kernel just returns EINVAL. > looking at the source, it seems it simply refuses anything that's not type-2; > should that really be right? I found the following commit: > > http://kerneltrap.org/mailarchive/linux-netdev/2008/11/11/4064594 > > However, it only seems to change EPERM into EINVAL. I don't see any About the cause of changing EPERM into EINVAL, can refer to http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=122046709502496&w=3. -- Best Regards Shan Wei > reasonable explanation why it should not be simply success; in fact, RFC 3452 > only seems to talk about using type-0 headers with this option. > > Any ideas? > > /* Steinar */