On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 03:03:01PM +0800, Xin Long wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 5:25 AM Neil Horman <nhorman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 03:08:24PM +0800, Xin Long wrote:
> > > Check with SCTP_FUTURE_ASSOC instead in
> > > sctp_/setgetsockopt_peer_addr_params, it's compatible with 0.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Xin Long <lucien.xin@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > net/sctp/socket.c | 18 ++++++++++--------
> > > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/net/sctp/socket.c b/net/sctp/socket.c
> > > index a52d132..4c43b95 100644
> > > --- a/net/sctp/socket.c
> > > +++ b/net/sctp/socket.c
> > > @@ -2750,12 +2750,13 @@ static int sctp_setsockopt_peer_addr_params(struct sock *sk,
> > > return -EINVAL;
> > > }
> > >
> > > - /* Get association, if assoc_id != 0 and the socket is a one
> > > - * to many style socket, and an association was not found, then
> > > - * the id was invalid.
> > > + /* Get association, if assoc_id != SCTP_FUTURE_ASSOC and the
> > > + * socket is a one to many style socket, and an association
> > > + * was not found, then the id was invalid.
> > > */
> > > asoc = sctp_id2assoc(sk, params.spp_assoc_id);
> > > - if (!asoc && params.spp_assoc_id && sctp_style(sk, UDP))
> > > + if (!asoc && params.spp_assoc_id != SCTP_FUTURE_ASSOC &&
> > Sorry to follow up, but I misspoke in my previous email, I should have said, why
> > do we only allow future associations as the only special case association id
> > here? Since the function is meant to set a specific association id, it seems to
> > me that you would want to:
> >
> > a) allow setting of a specific id
> > b) allow setting of all association ids on the socket
> > (SCTP_CURRENT_ASSOC)
> > c) allow recording of a set of params to apply to all current and future
> > associations (FUTURE/ALL).
> >
> > (a) is already handled clearly, but (b) and (c) require more work on this
> > function than just checking association id on entry.
> Hi, Neil,
>
> Note that not all sockopts support both of them, like
> we don't allow some sockopt to be applied to current assocs.
> and we don't allow some to be applied to future assocs.
>
> SCTP_FUTURE_ASSOC means sock's xxxx only
> SCTP_CURRENT_ASSOC means all sock->asocs' xxxx only
>
> If we only check assoc_id != SCTP_FUTURE_ASSOC, it means this
> sockopt doesn't support for all sock->asocs xxxx setting,
> or getting (like all sockopts getting).
> If we only check assoc_id != SCTP_CURRENT_ASSOC, it means this
> sockopt doesn't support for sock's xxxx setting (like Patch 11)
>
> As for SCTP_ALL_ASSOC, it means both of sock's and sock->asocs
> xxxx, not either of them. So we don't allow it in here.
>
> As you can see, in this patchset:
> 1. for sockopt setting:
> these who only support FUTURE will check SCTP_FUTURE_ASSOC, like Patch 2-10.
> these who only support CURRENT will check SCTP_CURRENT_ASSOC, like Patch 11.
> these who support both FUTURE and CURRENT will check assoc_id >
> SCTP_ALL_ASSOC, like Patch 12-24.
> 2. for sockopt getting:
> all sockopts will check SCTP_FUTURE_ASSOC. (as it's impossible to
> get all sock->asocs' xxxx)
>
> >
> > I think this comment may apply to all the socket option functions
> >
> > > + sctp_style(sk, UDP))
> > > return -EINVAL;
> > >
> > > /* Heartbeat demand can only be sent on a transport or
> > > @@ -5676,12 +5677,13 @@ static int sctp_getsockopt_peer_addr_params(struct sock *sk, int len,
> > > }
> > > }
> > >
> > > - /* Get association, if assoc_id != 0 and the socket is a one
> > > - * to many style socket, and an association was not found, then
> > > - * the id was invalid.
> > > + /* Get association, if assoc_id != SCTP_FUTURE_ASSOC and the
> > > + * socket is a one to many style socket, and an association
> > > + * was not found, then the id was invalid.
> > > */
> > > asoc = sctp_id2assoc(sk, params.spp_assoc_id);
> > > - if (!asoc && params.spp_assoc_id && sctp_style(sk, UDP)) {
> > > + if (!asoc && params.spp_assoc_id != SCTP_FUTURE_ASSOC &&
> > > + sctp_style(sk, UDP)) {
> > > pr_debug("%s: failed no association\n", __func__);
> > > return -EINVAL;
> > > }
> > > --
> > > 2.1.0
> > >
> > >
>
Ah, ok, apologies for misunderstanding. I'm apparently still jet lagged.
Neil
