Re: shutdown(2)'ing a bound UDP socket

To: "Peter J. Philipp" <pjp%centroid.eu@localhost>, Erik Fair <fair%netbsd.org@localhost>
Subject: Re: shutdown(2)'ing a bound UDP socket
From: Roy Marples <roy%marples.name@localhost>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2020 21:49:04 +0100

On 20/07/2020 19:56, Peter J. Philipp wrote:

Other choices I considered were writing to a raw socket but it would be a lot
of overhead and hard work when it comes to fragmentation.


Why are you concerned about fragmentation?

Provided you don't set INP_HDRINCL then the kernel will include relevant IPheaders and handle fragmentation for you (at least that's my understandinglooking at NetBSD's code).

The only extra overhead you should have is writing the UDP header which ispretty straight forward.

Roy

Follow-Ups:
- Re: shutdown(2)'ing a bound UDP socket
  - From: Peter J. Philipp
- Re: shutdown(2)'ing a bound UDP socket
  - From: Peter J. Philipp

References:
- shutdown(2)'ing a bound UDP socket
  - From: Peter J. Philipp
- Re: shutdown(2)'ing a bound UDP socket
  - From: Roy Marples
- Re: shutdown(2)'ing a bound UDP socket
  - From: Peter J. Philipp
- Re: shutdown(2)'ing a bound UDP socket
  - From: Erik Fair
- Re: shutdown(2)'ing a bound UDP socket
  - From: Peter J. Philipp

Prev by Date: Re: shutdown(2)'ing a bound UDP socket
Next by Date: Re: shutdown(2)'ing a bound UDP socket
Previous by Thread: Re: shutdown(2)'ing a bound UDP socket
Next by Thread: Re: shutdown(2)'ing a bound UDP socket
Indexes:

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index