On Thu, 17 Oct 2019 16:33:14 +0200, Sabrina Dubroca wrote: > > But can there be any potential issues if the TCP socket with esp ULP is > > also inserted into a sockmap? (well, I think sockmap socket gets a ULP, > > I think we prevent sockmap on top of ULP but not the other way around..) > > Yeah, there's nothing preventing a socket that's already in a sockmap > from getting a ULP, only for inserting a socket in a sockmap if it > already has a ULP (see sock_map_update_common). > > I gave it a quick test with espintcp, it doesn't quite seem to work: a > sockmap program that drops everything actually drops messages, but a > sockmap program that drops some messages based on length... doesn't. > > Although, to be honest, I don't see a use case for sockmap on espintcp > sockets.
Perhaps we could reject the espintcp ULP installation when sk_user_data is present? Would that make sense? > > Is there any chance we could see some selftests here? > > For espintcp? That's planned, I need to rework my test scripts so that > they don't need human interaction, and turn them into selftests.
