Re: [PATCH] iproute2 flush: handle larger tables and deleted entries

[Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net>]

Gautam Kachroo wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 2:38 AM, Patrick McHardy<kaber@trash.net> wrote:
>> Gautam Kachroo wrote:
>>> use a new netlink socket when sending flush messages to avoid reading
>>> any pending data on the existing netlink socket.
>>>
>>> read all of the response from the netlink request -- this response can
>>> be split over multiple recv calls, pretty much one per netlink request
>>> message. ENOENT errors, which correspond to attempts to delete an
>>> already deleted entry, are ignored. Other errors are not ignored.
>>
>> In which case would there be any pending data? From what I can see,
>> this can only happen when using batching, but in that case the
>> previous command should continue reading until it has received all
>> responses (which the netlink functions appear to be doing properly).
> 
> What is the "previous command"?

The last command before the one executing when using batching.

> Are you referring to rtnl_dump_filter? If rtnl_send_check comes across
> a failure, rtnl_dump_filter will not continue reading.
> 
> Here's the situation that I'm referring to:
> 
> If rtnl_send_check detects an error, it returns -1. rtnl_send_check is
> called from flush_update. The multiple implementations of flush_update
> (e.g. in ipneigh.c, ipaddress.c) propagate this return value to their
> caller, e.g. print_neigh or print_addrinfo.
> 
> print_neigh, print_addrinfo, etc. are called from rtnl_dump_filter.
> rtnl_dump_filter sits in a loop calling recvmsg on the netlink socket.
> However, it returns the error value if the filter function (e.g.
> print_neigh) returns an error. In this case, rtnl_dump_filter can
> return before it's read all the responses.
> The error return from rtnl_dump_filter causes the program to exit.

Yes, and I agree with your patch so far. My question is why you
need another socket.

> use a new netlink socket when sending flush messages to avoid reading
> any pending data on the existing netlink socket.

Under what circumstances would there be pending data when
performing a new iproute operation?