[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <499972E6.9090204@trash.net>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 15:06:30 +0100
From: Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
To: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>
CC: netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH] netlink: add NETLINK_BROADCAST_REPORT_ERROR socket option
Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> Patrick McHardy wrote:
>>> static inline struct netlink_sock *nlk_sk(struct sock *sk)
>>> {
>>> @@ -994,13 +995,15 @@ static inline int do_one_broadcast(struct sock
>>> *sk,
>>> if (p->skb2 == NULL) {
>>> netlink_overrun(sk);
>>> /* Clone failed. Notify ALL listeners. */
>>> - p->failure = 1;
>>> + if (nlk->flags & NETLINK_BROADCAST_SEND_REPORT_ERROR)
>>> + p->failure = 1;
>>
>> This doesn't make sense. *Other* sockets get skipped only iff
>> this socket had the error-report flag set? This should be done
>> in a consistent manner, which means either not set the failure
>> flag at all and retry for all sockets, or set it for any failed
>> socket delivery and determine the return value based on whether
>> one of the skipped sockets had the error-report flag set.
>
> I can add a check for the flag to allow sockets without the flag set to
> try to send the message:
>
> if ((nlk->flags & NETLINK_BROADCAST_SEND_ERROR) && p->failure) {
> netlink_overrun(sk);
> goto out;
> }
>
> Still, this "skip" behaviour looks to me strange. I don't see why a
> socket should skip if other socket's clone failed. Wouldn't it be better
> to remove this?
Yes, that was the first of my suggestions. I don't care much which
way its done, but it should provide a consistent behaviour, which
means skipping should not depend on the setting of a *different*
socket.
--
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists