On Sun, Apr 23, 2023 at 11:33:57PM +, Klemens Nanni wrote:
> > > I can't think of a scenario where returning EPERM (this diff) instead of
> > > whatever errno the currently earlier sanity checks yield would break.
It would surprise me if some userland would rely on the error code
when the ioct
On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 10:44:36PM +, Klemens Nanni wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 01:48:02PM +, Klemens Nanni wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 11:33:18PM +, Klemens Nanni wrote:
> > > All cases do the same check up first, so merge it before the switch.
>
> Committed.
>
> > > It c
On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 01:48:02PM +, Klemens Nanni wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 11:33:18PM +, Klemens Nanni wrote:
> > All cases do the same check up first, so merge it before the switch.
Committed.
> > It could be hoisted further in both in_ioctl() and in_ioctl_change_ifaddr(),
> >
On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 11:33:18PM +, Klemens Nanni wrote:
> All cases do the same check up first, so merge it before the switch.
>
> It could be hoisted further in both in_ioctl() and in_ioctl_change_ifaddr(),
> but that meant a change in errno return semantic, so leave it for now.
in6.c alr
All cases do the same check up first, so merge it before the switch.
It could be hoisted further in both in_ioctl() and in_ioctl_change_ifaddr(),
but that meant a change in errno return semantic, so leave it for now.
Feedback? Objection OK?
Index: in.c
===
