Maxim Mikityanskiy wrote:
> On 2022-01-25 09:06, John Fastabend wrote:
> > Maxim Mikityanskiy wrote:
> >> When CONFIG_SYN_COOKIES is off, bpf_tcp_check_syncookie returns
> >> ENOTSUPP. It's a non-standard and deprecated code. The related function
> >> bpf_tcp_gen_syncookie and most of the other functions use EOPNOTSUPP if
> >> some feature is not available. This patch changes ENOTSUPP to EOPNOTSUPP
> >> in bpf_tcp_check_syncookie.
> >>
> >> Fixes: 399040847084 ("bpf: add helper to check for a valid SYN cookie")
> >> Signed-off-by: Maxim Mikityanskiy <maximmi@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Reviewed-by: Tariq Toukan <tariqt@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > This came up in another thread? Or was it the same and we lost the context
> > in the commit msg. Either way I don't think we should start one-off
> > changing these user facing error codes. Its not the only spot we do this
> > and its been this way for sometime.
> >
> > Is it causing a real problem?
>
> I'm not aware of anyone complaining about it. It's just a cleanup to use
> the proper error code, since ENOTSUPP is a non-standard one (used in
> NFS?), for example, strerror() returns "Unknown error 524" instead of
> "Operation not supported".
>
> Source: Documentation/dev-tools/checkpatch.rst:
iirc we didn't change the other ones so I see no reason to change this. Its
not great, but anything using it has already figured it out and it is
user facing.
