netdev - [RFC] UDP SndbufErrors interface and the /proc/net/udp interface.

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

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 1 Jul 2008 09:47:23 +0300
From:	"Ian Brown" <ianbrn@...il.com>
To:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [RFC] UDP SndbufErrors interface and the /proc/net/udp interface.

Hello,

You can see UDP RcvbufErrors via /proc/net/snmp interface.
These are UDP RcvbufErrors per system.

A recent patch (from two weeks ago) added the ability to view
RcvbufErrors also per
port, via /proc/net/udp. This was done by incrementing sk_drops of the
sock struct when RcvbufErrors is incremented; see , in udp.c (both in
ipv4 and in ipv6)
the call to atomic_inc(&sk->sk_drops).

see:
http://kerneltrap.org/mailarchive/linux-netdev/2008/6/17/2153994

You can see UDP SndbufErrors also via /proc/net/snmp interface.
These are UDP SndbufErrors per system.
I was wondering if it is worthwhile to enable viewing SndbufErrors per
port, via /proc/net/udp interface. It could be done, for example, by adding
a member to the sock structure, for example, sk_send_err, (or
sk_udp_send_drop) incrementing it when SndbufErrors
is incremented, and adding code enable viewing it via /proc/net/udp interface.

I wonder: would such a patch (form me or others) in needed ? Or will
it be rejected because this idea is not good ?
In case this idea is not good, I wonder what is the reason for it.

Regards,
Ian
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html