| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20090914001759.GB30621@shareable.org> Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 01:17:59 +0100 From: Jamie Lokier <jamie@...reable.org> To: Evgeniy Polyakov <zbr@...emap.net> Cc: Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, alan@...ux.intel.com, hch@...radead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] networking/fanotify: declare fanotify socket numbers Evgeniy Polyakov wrote: > On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 05:51:42PM -0400, Eric Paris (eparis@...hat.com) wrote: > > For some things yes, some things no. I'd have to understand where loss > > can happen to know if it's feasible. If I know loss happens in the > > sender context that's great. If it's somewhere in the middle and the > > sender doesn't immediately know it'll never be delivered, yes, I don't > > think it can solve all my needs. How many places can and skb get lost > > between the sender and the receiver? > > When queue is full or you do not have enough RAM. Both are reported at > 'sending' time. Can you ->poll() and wait reliably until the queue will accept an skb? (A few spurious EAGAINs/ENOBUFs is ok, as long as it's not the norm). -- Jamie -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists