3 ms·

I still fail to see why that is a problem... Have it enable the option only if said unsupported options are not used. What am I missing?

• taspeotis 12y ago
  I don't have any special knowledge of this loopback fast path, so what follows is speculation. I'm guessing having it optimistically on unless one of the socket options is used is either a) impossible due to backwards compatibility or b) not worth the effort. On A): If you look at the TechNet article above, it shows how the loopback fast path connections bypass certain layers of the networking stack. If you have a socket with the "supported" set of socket options that starts life and begins sending/receiving bytes only to have its socket options changed to "unsupported" you're going to have send/receive bytes through the extra layers of the network stack. Now all of a sudden this network stack is seeing a socket appear out of nowhere that's already open and has sent and received data. Previously this situation might never have occurred (i.e. all layers of the network stack would see all stages of a socket's lifecycle). Now network filters etc. are broken. On B): You might be tempted to present to the extra layers of the network stack a faux-socket that faux-transitions through whatever stages of its lifecycle it needs to get to to get to the stage the real socket is at. (Not to mention going to other way around: switching to fast path from slow path.) This would avoid the compatibility problems. But that seems like a lot of effort for not a lot of value.