Re: so_rerror

[Jason Thorpe <thorpej%me.com@localhost>]

> On Nov 3, 2018, at 8:33 AM, Christos Zoulas <christos%zoulas.com@localhost> wrote:
> 
> While keeping track of receive overflows maybe desired (in the
> routing socket + dhcpcd case), I think since it is a new behavior
> it should be optional; programs that want to know about it should
> turn it on. This patch restores the original behavior and allows
> program who care about receive errors to arrange to be notified by
> introducing setsockopt SO_RERROR.

I agree with this change.  The new behavior is a true binary-compatibility problem that should always have been opt-in.

If you want the ability to throw the big-switch for everyone for debugging purposes, though, you could certainly add a sysctl that, if set, causes all new sockets to get SO_RERROR enabled by default.

-- thorpej