Re: [PATCH] Improve behaviour of Netlink Sockets

[Pablo Neira <pablo@eurodev.net>]

Herbert Xu wrote:

>In fact this is the reason why this whole problem is non-existant.
>
>Unless there is a kernel user that sends netlink messages with a timeout
>value other than 0, this patch does not resolve any dead-locks at all
>since there is none to start with.
>

yes, you are totally right, but as I told you before, I'm not focusing 
my efforts in improving netlink sockets for tools like iproute, for 
those MSG_DONTWAIT is fairly ok.

>So it looks to me as if this entire patch is simply papering over bugs
>in the user-space application where it either isn't processing the
>messages fast enough or it needs to enlarge its queue size.
>  
>

I don't agree, enlarging the queue size for applications that send a lot 
of information in a short period of time is just a workaround.

>Here is a tip, use separate sockets for unicast and multicast messages.
>That way your unicast socket is very unlikely to overrun.
>
>So I'd like to see the whole thing reverted.
>  
>

Herbert, I don't agree, my patch isn't related to stuff that you've 
mentioned. It's fairly true that most çof application use socket timeout 
0, but my patch is not for those! :-) well, still disagree?

regards,
Pablo