[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAM_iQpUpof_ix=HJyxgjS4G9Mv5Zmno05bq0cmSVVN9E_Mzasg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 16:12:13 -0800
From: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To: Adeel Sharif <madeel.sharif@...glemail.com>
Cc: Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Unix domain socket missing error code
On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 5:41 AM Adeel Sharif
<madeel.sharif@...glemail.com> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> We are a group of people working on making Linux safe for everyone. In
> hope of doing that I started testing the System Calls. The one I am
> currently working on is send/write.
>
> If send() is used to send datagrams on unix socket and the receiver
> has stopped receiving, but still connected, there is a high
> possibility that Linux kernel could eat up the whole system memory.
> Although there is a system wide limit on write memory from wmem_max
> parameter but this is sometimes also increased to system momory size
> in order to avoid packet drops.
>
> After having a look in the kernel implementation of
> unix_dgram_sendmsg() it is obvious that user buffers are copied into
> kernel socket buffers and they are queued to a linked list. This list
> is growing without any limits. Although there is a qlen parameter but
> it is never used to impose a limit on it. Could we perhaps impose a
> limit on it and return an error with errcode Queue_Full or something
> instead?
Isn't unix_recvq_full() supposed to do what you said? It is called inside
unix_dgram_sendmsg() to determine whether to wake up the dst socket.
Thanks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists