From b0573dea1fb32ebc72ffa05980fd840df1d80860 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Patrick McHardy Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 19:30:51 -0700 Subject: [NET]: Introduce SO_{SND,RCV}BUFFORCE socket options Allows overriding of sysctl_{wmem,rmrm}_max Signed-off-by: Patrick McHardy Signed-off-by: David S. Miller --- net/core/sock.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++-- 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) (limited to 'net') diff --git a/net/core/sock.c b/net/core/sock.c index 12f6d9a2a522..51a5e7ddee85 100644 --- a/net/core/sock.c +++ b/net/core/sock.c @@ -260,7 +260,7 @@ int sock_setsockopt(struct socket *sock, int level, int optname, if (val > sysctl_wmem_max) val = sysctl_wmem_max; - +set_sndbuf: sk->sk_userlocks |= SOCK_SNDBUF_LOCK; if ((val * 2) < SOCK_MIN_SNDBUF) sk->sk_sndbuf = SOCK_MIN_SNDBUF; @@ -274,6 +274,13 @@ int sock_setsockopt(struct socket *sock, int level, int optname, sk->sk_write_space(sk); break; + case SO_SNDBUFFORCE: + if (!capable(CAP_NET_ADMIN)) { + ret = -EPERM; + break; + } + goto set_sndbuf; + case SO_RCVBUF: /* Don't error on this BSD doesn't and if you think about it this is right. Otherwise apps have to @@ -282,7 +289,7 @@ int sock_setsockopt(struct socket *sock, int level, int optname, if (val > sysctl_rmem_max) val = sysctl_rmem_max; - +set_rcvbuf: sk->sk_userlocks |= SOCK_RCVBUF_LOCK; /* FIXME: is this lower bound the right one? */ if ((val * 2) < SOCK_MIN_RCVBUF) @@ -291,6 +298,13 @@ int sock_setsockopt(struct socket *sock, int level, int optname, sk->sk_rcvbuf = val * 2; break; + case SO_RCVBUFFORCE: + if (!capable(CAP_NET_ADMIN)) { + ret = -EPERM; + break; + } + goto set_rcvbuf; + case SO_KEEPALIVE: #ifdef CONFIG_INET if (sk->sk_protocol == IPPROTO_TCP) -- cgit v1.2.3-59-g8ed1b