From: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com>
To: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>,
David Ahern <dsa@cumulusnetworks.com>,
Andrey Vagin <avagin@openvz.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC net-next iproute2 1/2] libnetlink: Add test for error code returned from netlink reply
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2016 11:24:04 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20161027082404.GC1867@uranus.lan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20161027065253.GB1867@uranus.lan>
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 09:52:53AM +0300, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
...
> >
> > This looks like a mistake in how you implemented the functionality in the kernel.
> > Despite what it looks like, all netlink request/reply functionality reports
> > errors in current implementation by returning error to the sendmsg request.
> >
> > What you added implies that the new kernel api is wrong, or many other usages
> > are wrong. Please fix the kernel.
>
> No. This is not my code. This code has been in kernel for the really long time.
> I don't know why you've not been doing such test in libnetlink before.
>
> Actually I've hit this problem accidentaly -- I made a patch 2 from this
> set and run it on the machine where kernel was unpatched, ie without
> raw-diag module, and I found that we can't figure out if kernel notified
> us that some diag module simply not present in the system. And here is
> the only way to find it out.
Also, drop this series for a while, I'll resend new one: the status of
diag should not be tested unconditionally with NLMSG_DONE because the
rtnl_dump_filter_l helper is used not only for diag talks but overall
the iproute2, thus I need to test for status only for specified requests.
And I need to narrow down why not all device bound interfaces are killed
in one pass.
Cyrill
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-10-27 14:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-10-26 19:30 [RFC net-next iproute2 0/2] Add support for operating raw sockest via diag interface Cyrill Gorcunov
2016-10-26 19:30 ` [RFC net-next iproute2 1/2] libnetlink: Add test for error code returned from netlink reply Cyrill Gorcunov
2016-10-27 3:52 ` Stephen Hemminger
2016-10-27 6:52 ` Cyrill Gorcunov
2016-10-27 8:24 ` Cyrill Gorcunov [this message]
2016-10-26 19:30 ` [RFC net-next iproute2 2/2] ss: Add inet raw sockets information gathering via netlink diag interface Cyrill Gorcunov
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20161027082404.GC1867@uranus.lan \
--to=gorcunov@gmail.com \
--cc=avagin@openvz.org \
--cc=dsa@cumulusnetworks.com \
--cc=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=stephen@networkplumber.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).