From owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org  Thu Nov 12 19:54:39 2015
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org>
Delivered-To: freebsd-net@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org
 [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1])
 by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24F23A2D30D
 for <freebsd-net@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org>;
 Thu, 12 Nov 2015 19:54:39 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org)
Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org
 [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::16:76])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
 (Client did not present a certificate)
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 105A51B0E
 for <freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org>; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 19:54:39 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org)
Received: from bugs.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.118])
 by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id tACJscoP040361
 for <freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org>; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 19:54:38 GMT
 (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org)
From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org
To: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org
Subject: [Bug 204438] setsockopt() handling of kern.ipc.maxsockbuf limit
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 19:54:38 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: AssignedTo
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: Base System
X-Bugzilla-Component: kern
X-Bugzilla-Version: 11.0-CURRENT
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: needs-qa, patch
X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Many People
X-Bugzilla-Who: cameronsparr@gmail.com
X-Bugzilla-Status: New
X-Bugzilla-Priority: ---
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: mfc-stable9? mfc-stable10?
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-204438-2472-K3VYLEhZHU@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-204438-2472@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-204438-2472@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20
Precedence: list
List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD <freebsd-net.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-net>,
 <mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-net/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-net@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
 <mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 19:54:39 -0000

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204438

--- Comment #16 from Cameron Sparr <cameronsparr@gmail.com> ---
I forgot that it's actually spelled out pretty clearly in the comments of the
code:

/* Don't error on this BSD doesn't and if you think
 * about it this is right. Otherwise apps have to
 * play 'guess the biggest size' games. RCVBUF/SNDBUF
 * are treated in BSD as hints
 */
val = min_t(u32, val, sysctl_rmem_max);

So essentially they are just treating those buffer sizes as "hints". It makes
some sense, because they are correct about applications having no idea what
size they can actually set it to (without root access to the system).

So that would be another option, which is to just set the buffer to min(cc,
sb_max_adj)

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.