Messages in this thread | | | From | Willem de Bruijn <> | Date | Wed, 4 Dec 2019 15:43:00 -0500 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] net/tls: Fix return values for setsockopt |
| |
On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 2:36 PM Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@netronome.com> wrote: > > (there is a v2, in case you missed)
Thanks. I meant to respond to your comment. (but should have done sooner :)
> On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 14:22:55 -0500, Willem de Bruijn wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 6:08 PM Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > > On Tue, 3 Dec 2019 23:44:58 +0100, Valentin Vidic wrote: > > > > ENOTSUPP is not available in userspace: > > > > > > > > setsockopt failed, 524, Unknown error 524 > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Valentin Vidic <vvidic@valentin-vidic.from.hr> > > > > > > I'm not 100% clear on whether we can change the return codes after they > > > had been exposed to user space for numerous releases.. > > > > This has also come up in the context of SO_ZEROCOPY in the past. In my > > opinion the answer is no. A quick grep | wc -l in net/ shows 99 > > matches for this error code. Only a fraction of those probably make it > > to userspace, but definitely more than this single case. > > > > If anything, it may be time to define it in uapi? > > No opinion but FWIW I'm toying with some CI for netdev, I've added a > check for use of ENOTSUPP, apparently checkpatch already sniffs out > uses of ENOSYS, so seems appropriate to add this one.
Good idea if not exposing this in UAPI.
> > > But if we can - please fix the tools/testing/selftests/net/tls.c test > > > as well, because it expects ENOTSUPP. > > > > Even if changing the error code, EOPNOTSUPP is arguably a better > > replacement. The request itself is valid. Also considering forward > > compatibility. > > For the case TLS version case?
Yes. It's a more specific signal. Quite a few error paths already return EINVAL.
| |