Context not available.
	static void tcp_usrclosed(struct tcpcb *);	static void tcp_usrclosed(struct tcpcb *);
	static void tcp_fill_info(struct tcpcb , struct tcp_info );	static void tcp_fill_info(struct tcpcb , struct tcp_info );

		static int tcp_options_support(struct tcpcb *tp, int flags);

	#ifdef TCPDEBUG	#ifdef TCPDEBUG
	#define TCPDEBUG0 int ostate = 0	#define TCPDEBUG0 int ostate = 0
	#define TCPDEBUG1() ostate = tp ? tp->t_state : 0	#define TCPDEBUG1() ostate = tp ? tp->t_state : 0
Context not available.
	goto out;	goto out;
	}	}
	tp = intotcpcb(inp);	tp = intotcpcb(inp);
		if (flags & PRUS_OOB) {
		rscheffUnsubmitted Not Done Inline Actions the socket MSG_OOB flag is directly mapped into protocol PRU_OOB flag, not? (they also happen to be numeric identical). Conceptually, the protocol itself should be checking the PRUS_* flags, not the MSG_* flags. uipc_socket.c:1499: (flags & MSG_OOB) ? PRUS_OOB : uipc_socket.c:1729: pru_flag = (flags & MSG_OOB) ? PRUS_OOB : rscheff: the socket MSG_OOB flag is directly mapped into protocol PRU_OOB flag, not? (they also happen…
		rrsAuthorUnsubmitted Done Inline Actions The problem here can be found in uipc_socket.c. Before this function became the pru_send routine we "used" to use sosend_generric() or maybe sosend_stream(), go look at these two functions (in fact look too at sosend_dgram) all of them map MSG_OOB -> PRUS_OOB and MSG_EOF -> PRUS_EOF But now, since this function is what is called that is not happening, since this function does nto have the proper mapping. Yes conceptually the protocol needs to use PRUS_... but someone must do the translation from the socket level to the protocol level. And that used to be done in sosend_xxxx() function which now is no longer called. It most likely should be done here. rrs: The problem here can be found in uipc_socket.c. Before this function became the pru_send…
		rscheffUnsubmitted Not Done Inline Actions Then I must be missing some context here. Are you saying that you are bypassing the socket interface, and instead are calling tcp_usr_send() directly in some deployments, where the MSG_ flags are used instead of the PRUS_ flags? kern_sendfile.c has vn_sendfile, this however doesn't support OOB either apparently. rscheff: Then I must be missing some context here. Are you saying that you are bypassing the socket…
		rscheffUnsubmitted Not Done Inline Actions see transport@; I believe you missed that sosend() is calling the pru_sosend() pointer, and not the pru_send() pointer. So the socket API for TCP still runs thought either sosend_generic (default) or sosend_stream (sysctl selectable), both of which do the conversion from MSG_OOB / MSG_EOF in the "correct" layer - and TCP here only has to care about the PRU_ type flags. rscheff: see transport@; I believe you missed that sosend() is calling the pru_sosend() pointer, and not…
		rrsAuthorUnsubmitted Done Inline Actions Yeah I had missed the so rrs: Yeah I had missed the so
		if ((error = tcp_options_support(tp, PRUS_OOB)) != 0) {
		if (control)
		m_freem(control);
		if (m && (flags & PRUS_NOTREADY) == 0)
		m_freem(m);
		error = ECONNRESET;
		goto out;
		}
		}
		tuexenUnsubmitted Not Done Inline Actions I think letting `tcp_options_support()` return the error and lateron overwriting it is not optimal. What about letting `tcp_options_support()` return a bool, and replace the above with: if (flags & PRUS_OOB && !tcp_options_support(tp, PRUS_OOB)) { if (control) m_freem(control); if (m && (flags & PRUS_NOTREADY) == 0) m_freem(m); error = EINVAL; goto out; } tuexen: I think letting `tcp_options_support()` return the error and lateron overwriting it is not…
		rrsAuthorUnsubmitted Done Inline Actions That was a code cloning error... The error = CONNRESET should not be present. and I prefer not to make it a bool, but to have the stack return 0 = I support it ERRNO = I don't support it and here is the error. The overwrite was just a mistake. rrs: That was a code cloning error... The error = CONNRESET should not be present. and I prefer…
	TCPDEBUG1();	TCPDEBUG1();
	if (nam != NULL && tp->t_state < TCPS_SYN_SENT) {	if (nam != NULL && tp->t_state < TCPS_SYN_SENT) {
	switch (nam->sa_family) {	switch (nam->sa_family) {
Context not available.
	NET_EPOCH_EXIT(et);	NET_EPOCH_EXIT(et);
	}	}

		static int
		tcp_options_support(struct tcpcb *tp, int flags)
		tuexenUnsubmitted Not Done Inline Actions Maybe let it return a `bool`? Maybe call it something like `tcp_pru_options_support()` or so? TCP options rings other bells... tuexen: Maybe let it return a `bool`? Maybe call it something like `tcp_pru_options_support()` or so?
		rrsAuthorUnsubmitted Done Inline Actions sure rrs: sure
		{
		/*
		* For now we say we support anything, we
		* need to change this so that we ask the
		* specific stack and let it decide if
		* it supports PRUS_OOB or possibly other
		* flags in the future.
		*/
		return (0);
		}

	/*	/*
	* Receive out-of-band data.	* Receive out-of-band data.
	*/	*/
Context not available.
	goto out;	goto out;
	}	}
	tp = intotcpcb(inp);	tp = intotcpcb(inp);
		error = tcp_options_support(tp, PRUS_OOB);
		if (error) {
		goto out;
		tuexenUnsubmitted Not Done Inline Actions If we use a bool, we want to set error to something.... tuexen: If we use a bool, we want to set error to something....
		rrsAuthorUnsubmitted Done Inline Actions I do not want to use bool here rrs: I do not want to use bool here
		}
	TCPDEBUG1();	TCPDEBUG1();
	if ((so->so_oobmark == 0 &&	if ((so->so_oobmark == 0 &&
	(so->so_rcv.sb_state & SBS_RCVATMARK) == 0) \|\|	(so->so_rcv.sb_state & SBS_RCVATMARK) == 0) \|\|
Context not available.

stand/efi: Fix for binutils when targeting arm64ClosedPublicActions

Details

Diff Detail

Event Timeline

Revision ContentsChangeset List

Diff 138758

stand/efi/loader/arch/arm64/arm64.ldscript

stand/efi: Fix for binutils when targeting arm64
ClosedPublic
Actions

Revision Contents
Changeset List