Re: TCP vs urgent data [was Re: poll(): IN/OUT vs {RD,WR}NORM]
Johnny Billquist <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.os.netbsd.devel.kernel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 2024-05-29 16:54, Mouse wrote:
>> But reading RFC 959, there is no mention of using urgent data under
>> any circumstances.
>
> No _explicit_ mention. It's there by reference.
>
>> What that RFC says about aborting is:
>
>> [...]
>> 2. User system sends the Telnet "Synch" signal.
>
> This involves setting URG. Read the telnet spec's description of the
> SYNCH operation (the top of page 9 of RFC854 is a good starting point).
Ah. Didn't bother digging deep enough this time. Fair enough. :-)
> See also SO_OOBINLINE, SIOCATMARK, and SS_RCVATMARK. I am sorely
> tempted to try to rip out the OOB botch and design a socket interface
> to the urgent pointer that isn't so badly broken, but I doubt I'd
> actually find any use for the latter. I might rip out the OOB stuff
> just to find and fix anything trying to use it, though.
I think ripping it out would be the right thing. And I suspect very
little would notice. And just pretend the sun is shining and continue
running would probably work for those who even try using it.
Johnny
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: [email protected] || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol