On 03/25/2016 12:25 AM, Tom Herbert wrote: > On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 6:19 AM, Gilberto Bertin > <gilberto.ber...@gmail.com> wrote: >> This is my second attempt to submit an RFC for this patch. >> >> Some arguments for and against it since the first submission: >> * SO_BINDTOSUBNET is an arbitrary option and can be seens as nother use >> * case of the SO_REUSEPORT BPF patch >> * but at the same time using BPF requires more work/code on the server >> and since the bind to subnet use case could potentially become a >> common one maybe there is some value in having it as an option instead >> of having to code (either manually or with clang) an eBPF program that >> would do the same > > Gilberto, I'm not sure I understand this argument. Have you > implemented the BPF bind solution? > > Thanks, > Tom
Yes, I wrote up a very basic draft for this feature (I didn't know there was already some work going on with SO_ATTACH_REUSEPORT_[CE]BPF). Thanks, Gilberto
