netdev - Re: Single socket with TX_RING and RX

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: <5194BF7C.2040303@redhat.com>
Date:	Thu, 16 May 2013 13:14:04 +0200
From:	Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com>
To:	Ricardo Tubío <rtpardavila@...il.com>
CC:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, phil@....cc
Subject: Re: Single socket with TX_RING and RX_RING

On 05/16/2013 01:01 PM, Ricardo Tubío wrote:
> Phil Sutter <phil <at> nwl.cc> writes:
>
>> So you do not call init_ring() twice as one may imply when reading your
>> first mail? Please provide a complete code sample.
>
> Yes, I call it twice. The problem is that if I call it twice with the same
> socket_fd, the second time I call it I get the EBUSY error from kernel. I
> have to use two different sockets (two different socket_fd's, therefore) in
> order to workaround this issue.
>
> The code I use for calling "init_ring" is the one below. If in function
> "init_rings", instead of using two different sockets (rx_socket_fd and
> tx_socket_fd), I use a single socket, I get the EBUSY error from kernel.

Ricardo, haven't we already been trough this that this way it cannot work?

This is not what we suggested in earlier mails.

Also, why do you keep sending your answers only to netdev without keeping
others in CC?
--
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