Re: [PATCH net-next-2.6 v2 08/12] net-caif: add CAIF socket implementation
From: Marcel Holtmann <marcel@holtmann.org>
Date: 2010-02-16 15:59:17
Hi Sjur,
+static int setsockopt(struct socket *sock,
+ int lvl, int opt, char __user *ov, unsigned int ol)
+{
+ struct sock *sk = sock->sk;
+ struct caifsock *cf_sk = container_of(sk, struct caifsock, sk);
+ int prio, linksel;
+ struct ifreq ifreq;
+ struct caif_param caif_param;
+ if (lvl != SOL_CAIF) {
+ pr_debug("CAIF: %s(): setsockopt bad level\n", __func__);
+ return -ENOPROTOOPT;
+ }
+ if (STATE_IS_OPEN(cf_sk)) {
+ pr_debug("CAIF: %s(): setsockopt "
+ "cannot be done on a connected socket\n",
+ __func__);
+ return -ENOPROTOOPT;
+ }
+ switch (opt) {
+ case CAIFSO_LINK_SELECT:
+ if (ol < sizeof(int)) {
+ pr_debug("CAIF: %s(): setsockopt"
+ " CAIFSO_CHANNEL_CONFIG bad size\n", __func__);
+ return -EINVAL;
+ }
+ if (copy_from_user(&linksel, ov, sizeof(int)))
+ return -EINVAL;
+ lock_sock(&(cf_sk->sk));
+ cf_sk->config.phy_pref = linksel;
+ pr_debug("CAIF: %s(): Setting sockopt pref=%dn", __func__,
+ cf_sk->config.phy_pref);
+ release_sock(&cf_sk->sk);
+ return 0;
+
+ case SO_PRIORITY:
+ if (ol < sizeof(int)) {
+ pr_debug("CAIF: %s(): setsockopt"
+ " SO_PRIORITY bad size\n", __func__);
+ return -EINVAL;
+ }
+ if (copy_from_user(&prio, ov, sizeof(int)))
+ return -EINVAL;
+ lock_sock(&(cf_sk->sk));
+ cf_sk->config.phy_pref = prio;
+ pr_debug("CAIF: %s(): Setting sockopt pref=%dn", __func__,
+ cf_sk->config.phy_pref);
+ release_sock(&cf_sk->sk);
+ return 0;
+
+ case SO_BINDTODEVICE:
+ if (ol < sizeof(struct ifreq)) {
+ pr_debug("CAIF: %s(): setsockopt"
+ " SO_PRIORITY bad size\n", __func__);
+ return -EINVAL;
+ }
+ if (copy_from_user(&ifreq, ov, sizeof(ifreq)))
+ return -EFAULT;
+ lock_sock(&(cf_sk->sk));
+ strncpy(cf_sk->config.phy_name, ifreq.ifr_name,
+ sizeof(cf_sk->config.phy_name));
+ cf_sk->config.phy_name[sizeof(cf_sk->config.phy_name)-1] = 0;
+
+ release_sock(&cf_sk->sk);
+ return 0;I would have implemented SO_PRIORITY and SO_BINDTODEVICE on SOL_SOCKET level. Having them on SOL_CAIF level is not really useful. Regards Marcel