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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2022 13:12:18 +0200 From: Ismael Luceno <iluceno@...e.de> To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>, "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: Netlink NLM_F_DUMP_INTR flag lost On Fri, 17 Jun 2022 15:01:10 +0200 Ismael Luceno <iluceno@...e.de> wrote: > On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 17:16:12 -0700 > Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> wrote: <...> > > That's iterating over protocols, AFAICT, we don't guarantee > > consistency across protocols. > > That's reasonable, I was just wondering about it because it does seem > reasonable that the flags affect only the packets describing the table > whose dump got interrupted... So, just for clarification: Scenario 1: - 64 KB packet is filled. - protocol table shrinks - Next iteration finds it's done - next protocol clears the seq, so nothing is flaged - ... - NLMSG_DONE (not flagged) Scenario 2: - 64 KB packet is filled. - protocol table shrinks - Next iteration finds it's done - NLMSG_DONE (flagged with NLM_F_DUMP_INTR) So, in order to break as little as possible, I was thinking about introducing a new packet iff it happens we have to signal INTR between protocols. Does that sound good? -- Ismael Luceno SUSE L3 Support
Powered by blists - more mailing lists