From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Berg Subject: Re: [RFC] netlink: add socket destruction notification Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 14:03:07 +0100 Message-ID: <1257771787.29454.173.camel@johannes.local> References: <1254473048.3959.76.camel@johannes.local> <4AF43EF9.3020707@trash.net> <1257521204.29454.31.camel@johannes.local> <4AF442C2.9040704@trash.net> <1257762132.29454.161.camel@johannes.local> <4AF8122F.9060807@trash.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-qV0G4NF4tvWkEEFiLXxE" Cc: netdev , Jouni Malinen , Thomas Graf To: Patrick McHardy Return-path: Received: from xc.sipsolutions.net ([83.246.72.84]:37688 "EHLO sipsolutions.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750991AbZKINDG (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Nov 2009 08:03:06 -0500 In-Reply-To: <4AF8122F.9060807@trash.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: --=-qV0G4NF4tvWkEEFiLXxE Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, 2009-11-09 at 13:59 +0100, Patrick McHardy wrote: > > Thanks for the explanation. I think we'd need the second condition > > removed, I don't see a reason to force a socket to not also have > > multicast RX if it's used for any of the purposes we're looking at this > > for. Guess we need to audit the callees to determine whether that's ok. >=20 > I've already done that. Its currently only used by netfilter > for which this change also makes sense. Cool, I arrived at that conclusion too, it seemed that it would currently be somewhat strangely broken if you could add multicast groups to those sockets used there. Not sure if you can though. > > Can you quickly explain the difference between release and destruct? >=20 > release is called when the socket is closed, destruct is called > once all references are gone. I think with the synchonous processing > done nowadays they shouldn't make any difference, but release > should be fine in either case. Ok, cool, thanks. Do you want me to send the change removing the multicast check, or would you want to do that since you audited all the netlink callers? Also, it's called URELEASE for unicast -- should we rename it to just RELEASE? johannes --=-qV0G4NF4tvWkEEFiLXxE Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIcBAABAgAGBQJK+BMHAAoJEODzc/N7+QmaCTkQAMc7KxbX7HlXWNrjjWaVEd53 9UuYW7V2K7UlkYA/Lsheuim0cDLGy9bshbDb6ZxCe2CGFIgy4ePFohc2kK1B9iXU +sLUJlOMv8w8Hu+5svC2h2RxH2nT9wMFTdjkE7GO8yiLLWEe0VNpHqsq+XZzXkY8 cVHlvrGoXi4Yxc++c8DXJLc8PwSeKBX6cbEPiu3tAV79k7U2J6AcUAOFkTTzLdJA mHsHFx2pHAezriIxHBUqtkZo4NDVooZ4ti09FC8iicPT8+o97FaaPrc05IqLNbb1 eecAVxCHFGyHutT9PMPDwErFf/DsdTxfXOGg5AhPiQAonqHprm1Z/S7XW+qUrBhU G8MQXs2KKKyNXOpXeKQJGCxEOnEC9Ve/1b4GkhkTqi1ENTPlp5yKi082ZKm6eI2j kqfAF+FyV5VgKJqw3hY+oZJHX7Nhme2X6mvIDeJRcCHFyRGxrJj8m2rAha4t1Yyo qlKwZ4oxcUXewgUJNOwjsBrS7yvE9drjOgMa698pk6fYAB9xySd3lfkDI0QaH6bc iCGZJPv+27Ey+739dAz17hc06onUnRCbl/stMb3fJALeaD9SMevNeG8YKJBdLnNX BbhazxtozuyrwSQkrm9fjqDSVbrrzi5LTWTgo7wIweJl8U8oVWtDaNnO7NbGmMxI q+dk7SECmsqhsGei5a8h =1XcK -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-qV0G4NF4tvWkEEFiLXxE--