Re: so_rerror

[christos%zoulas.com@localhost (Christos Zoulas)]

On Nov 3,  8:23pm, martin%duskware.de@localhost (Martin Husemann) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: so_rerror

| On Sat, Nov 03, 2018 at 06:53:49PM +0000, Christos Zoulas wrote:
| 
| > @@ -537,6 +538,7 @@
| >  	so->so_proto = prp;
| >  	so->so_send = sosend;
| >  	so->so_receive = soreceive;
| > +	so->so_options = sooptions;
| >  #ifdef MBUFTRACE
| >  	so->so_rcv.sb_mowner = &prp->pr_domain->dom_mowner;
| >  	so->so_snd.sb_mowner = &prp->pr_domain->dom_mowner;
| 
| 
| I think we need to mask sooptions here or with an accessor function
| when using the sysctl to write the value. It is likely not a good idea
| to set e.g. "there is an accept filter running" to on when this is a lie.
| 
| Maybe we should instead do a boolean sysctl and just set the single bit 
| in sooptions?

I know, I thought about that but then I decided it was simpler and
more functional to allow everything. I guess I can filter out the
ones that don't make sense... Stay tuned.

christos