[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e0634e99-e1e9-47b7-9a99-1f053d66e2f0@email.android.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 12:05:53 +0100
From: Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
To: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
CC: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] netfilter: nf_sockopt_find() / nf_register_sockopt() should not return EINTR
On 31. Juli 2014 11:55:25 GMT+01:00, Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org> wrote:
>On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 10:41:35PM +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>> From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
>>
>> getsockopt() or setsockopt() sometimes returns -EINTR instead of
>> -ENOPROTOOPT, causing headaches to application developers.
>>
>> This is because unsupported commands might go through
>nf_sockopt_find()
>> and this function returns -EINTR if a signal is pending.
>>
>> Just use non interruptible mutex functions, as there is no reason
>> we should sleep for a long time here.
>
>On top of this patch, I think that at least we can also ged rid of
>these interruptible mutex from the netfilter/core code too (see
>preliminary patch attached).
Agreed. I think there are actually no cases at all where using the
interruptable variants makes sense.
>I can also adapt the callers so they don't check anymore the return
>value as they will always succeed.
>
>Comments? Thanks.
I'd leave checks in the callers at least for all init/registration functions.
Quite possible future changes will add back error conditions and its
more consistent to follow this convention in all cases.
--
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