Re: fibnum2.diff (Re: per-FIB socket binding)

On Friday, March 21, 2025 8:22:56 AM UTC Paul Vixie wrote:
> This is a reply to the second of two of Julian's recent messages.
> 
> On Friday, March 14, 2025 4:45:48 AM UTC Julian Elischer wrote:
> 
> > I think the order of evaluation would be Process FIB highest priority,
> > followed by interface FIB. I do remember I was thinking about a fib
> > value of -1 being "no fib..   I'm a pushover, do with me what you
> > want". but I never really followed that through.
> 
> we're using fib 0 for that today, and it works. i'll add your process-first
> priority scheme in what i suppose will be called "fibnum3".

i was mistaken. the desired process-first fibnum handling is already present 
in the kernel's socreate() function. if the process fib inherited by the new 
socket is nonzero, nothing lower down (soclone, sobind) will override that.

so, the fibnum2 diff is hereby proposed for addition to main and backport to 
14. (note, the diff i sent is against 14.2.) what's my next step?

-- 
Paul Vixie