On Tue, 2009-11-24 at 22:27 +0100, Pierre Riteau wrote:
> On 24 nov. 2009, at 12:22, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2009-11-24 at 12:17 +0100, Pierre Riteau wrote:
> >> Isn't there a way to detect whether the kernel supports the
> >> TUNSETOFFLOAD ioctl at all?
> >
> > The kernel will set errno to EINVAL if TUNSETOFFLOAD isn't supported, so
> > we could just ignore that case:
> >
> > if (ioctl(fd, TUNSETOFFLOAD, offload) != 0) {
> > offload &= ~TUN_F_UFO;
> > if (ioctl(fd, TUNSETOFFLOAD, offload) != 0 && errno != EINVAL) {
> > fprintf(stderr, "TUNSETOFFLOAD ioctl() failed: %s\n",
> > strerror(errno));
> > }
> > }
> >
> > The only concern is that we'll also miss out on an error message if
> > EINVAL is set for another reason. Currently, the only other reason if we
> > pass a offload flag not supported by the kernel, but that should never
> > happen.
> >
> > Feel free to send a patch with that change and I'll ack it
....
>
> Couldn't we probe the kernel with a 0 offload value to check if it supports
> TUNSETOFFLOAD?
> I tried the following and it works on my 2.6.26 Debian kernel.
> What do you think? I will send a proper patch if you agree.
>
> diff --git a/net/tap-linux.c b/net/tap-linux.c
> index 0f621a2..e038e1a 100644
> --- a/net/tap-linux.c
> +++ b/net/tap-linux.c
> @@ -129,6 +129,11 @@ void tap_fd_set_offload(int fd, int csum, int tso4,
> {
> unsigned int offload = 0;
>
> + /* Check if our kernel supports TUNSETOFFLOAD */
> + if (ioctl(fd, TUNSETOFFLOAD, 0) != 0 && errno == EINVAL) {
> + return;
> + }
> +
It's not ideal because a) it's another syscall and b) you're briefly
disabling any flags that may have been set previously ... but in our
case, neither is a real concern and it's a nice, simple solution.
So, sounds good to me :)
Cheers,
Mark.
