netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/3] netlink: fix NETLINK_RECV_NO_ENOBUFS in netlink_set

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

Message-ID: <4BA0F4C0.8050901@trash.net>
Date:	Wed, 17 Mar 2010 16:26:56 +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 1/3] netlink: fix NETLINK_RECV_NO_ENOBUFS in netlink_set_err()

Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> Currently, ENOBUFS errors are reported to the socket via
> netlink_set_err() even if NETLINK_RECV_NO_ENOBUFS is set. However,
> that should not happen. This fixes this problem and it changes the
> prototype of netlink_set_err() to return the number of sockets whose
> error has been set. This allows to know if any error has been set.
> This return value is used in the next patch in these bugfix series.

But that only happens if we have a message allocate error, which is
a different situation than rcvqueue overrun, which I thought the
original patch was supposed to handle (disable netlink congestion
control).

Is there any problem with these errors?
--
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