Igor,
On Sat, 11 Jun 2005, 02:12+0400, Igor Sysoev wrote:
> Hi,
>
> man setsockopt(2) states that "passing in an optval of NULL will remove
> the filter", however, setsockopt() always return EINVAL in this case,
> because do_setopt_accept_filter() removes the filter if sopt == NULL, but
> not if
On Sat, 11 Jun 2005, 02:36-0700, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> Looks cool. Can you commit it? Or should I?
I'll commit and handle MFC. Thanks for review Alfred.
--
Maxim Konovalov
___
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailma
Looks cool. Can you commit it? Or should I?
* Maxim Konovalov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [050611 00:25] wrote:
> [ CC'ed rwatson ]
>
> On Sat, 11 Jun 2005, 02:12+0400, Igor Sysoev wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > man setsockopt(2) states that "passing in an optval of NULL will remove
> > the filter", however
[ CC'ed rwatson ]
On Sat, 11 Jun 2005, 02:12+0400, Igor Sysoev wrote:
> Hi,
>
> man setsockopt(2) states that "passing in an optval of NULL will remove
> the filter", however, setsockopt() always return EINVAL in this case,
> because do_setopt_accept_filter() removes the filter if sopt == NULL, b
Hi,
man setsockopt(2) states that "passing in an optval of NULL will remove
the filter", however, setsockopt() always return EINVAL in this case,
because do_setopt_accept_filter() removes the filter if sopt == NULL, but
not if sopt->val == NULL. The fix is easy:
-if (sopt == NULL) {
+
