netdev - Re: question on netlink

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <49AF6972.8000103@trash.net>
Date:	Thu, 05 Mar 2009 06:56:02 +0100
From:	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
To:	Chris Friesen <cfriesen@...tel.com>
CC:	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Linux Network Development list <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: question on netlink_overrun()

Chris Friesen wrote:
> Currently we set netlink_overrun() on the socket in both the unicast and 
> broadcast paths.  If I understand things correctly this should result in 
> the receiver getting ENOBUFS the next time they try a socket-related 
> syscall.
> 
> However, in the netlink_dump() code we don't call it--was this an 
> oversight or an intentional design decision?
> 
> I have a userspace app that would like to know if it ran out of buffer 
> space in the receive socket (and hence lost some packets) while dumping 
> SA information in xfrm_user_rcv_msg().

The dump should never overrun since it has flow control based
on available socket memory. Once the decision has been made
to send a dump packet and it has been sucessfully allocated,
it is never dropped. Except when explicitly filtered.
--
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