Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 18 Feb 2020 12:35:46 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <20200218.123546.666027846950664712.davem@davemloft.net>
To:     danielwa@cisco.com
Cc:     zbr@ioremap.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drivers: connector: cn_proc: allow limiting certain
 messages
From:   David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
In-Reply-To: <20200218163030.GR24152@zorba>
References: <20200217175209.GM24152@zorba>
        <20200217.185235.495219494110132658.davem@davemloft.net>
        <20200218163030.GR24152@zorba>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

From: "Daniel Walker (danielwa)" <danielwa@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2020 16:30:36 +0000

> It's multicast and essentially broadcast messages .. So everyone gets every
> message, and once it's on it's likely it won't be turned off. Given that, It seems
> appropriate that the system administrator has control of what messages if any
> are sent, and it should effect all listening for messages.
> 
> I think I would agree with you if this was unicast, and each listener could tailor
> what messages they want to get. However, this interface isn't that, and it would
> be considerable work to convert to that.

You filter at recvmsg() on the specific socket, multicast or not, I
don't understand what the issue is.