| 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: <20110330.000518.242131416.davem@davemloft.net> Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 00:05:18 -0700 (PDT) From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> To: socketcan@...tkopp.net Cc: mkl@...gutronix.de, wg@...ndegger.com, socketcan-users@...ts.berlios.de, netdev@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: poll broken (for can) From: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net> Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 22:03:12 +0200 > Hm - the problem could be that people expect their frames to be sent 'in > time', so if we increase the tx_queue_len, it's not transparent when the > frames are potentially leaving the system - and if the application data is > already out-dated when hitting the medium. > > What about having up to three CAN frames in each CAN_RAW socket send buffer > and e.g.50 frames in the tx_queue_len of the netdevice as a starting point? Setting tx_queue_len low is bound to cause all kinds of problems. This poll() peculiarity is just one such problem. I would suggest increasing it for CAN devices to at least 100. -- 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