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  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]
Date:	Tue, 17 May 2016 12:35:53 -0600
From:	subashab@...eaurora.org
To:	Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@...gle.com>
Cc:	David Ahern <dsa@...ulusnetworks.com>,
	Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, netdev-owner@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH iproute2] ss: Tell user about -EOPNOTSUPP for SOCK_DESTROY

On 2016-05-16 20:29, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 11:24 AM, David Ahern <dsa@...ulusnetworks.com> 
> wrote:
>> As I mentioned we can print the unsupported once or per socket matched 
>> and
>> with the socket params. e.g.,
>> 
>> +               } else if (errno == EOPNOTSUPP) {
>> +                       printf("Operation not supported for:\n");
>> +                       inet_show_sock(h, diag_arg->f, 
>> diag_arg->protocol);
>> 
>> Actively suppressing all error messages is just wrong. I get the 
>> flooding
>> issue so I'm fine with just printing it once.
> 
> I disagree, but then I'm the one who wrote it in the first place, so
> you wouldn't expect me to agree. :-) Let's see what Stephen says.

Hi Lorenzo

Would it be acceptable to have a separate column which displays the 
result of the sock destroy operation per socket.
State    ... Killed
ESTAB         Y
TIME_WAIT     N

If it is not supported from kernel, maybe print U (unsupported) for 
this.

--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora 
Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists