From: Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net>
To: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@netfilter.org>
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH] netlink: add NETLINK_BROADCAST_REPORT_ERROR socket option
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 15:06:30 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <499972E6.9090204@trash.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <499973DC.3000208@netfilter.org>
Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> Patrick McHardy wrote:
>>> static inline struct netlink_sock *nlk_sk(struct sock *sk)
>>> {
>>> @@ -994,13 +995,15 @@ static inline int do_one_broadcast(struct sock
>>> *sk,
>>> if (p->skb2 == NULL) {
>>> netlink_overrun(sk);
>>> /* Clone failed. Notify ALL listeners. */
>>> - p->failure = 1;
>>> + if (nlk->flags & NETLINK_BROADCAST_SEND_REPORT_ERROR)
>>> + p->failure = 1;
>>
>> This doesn't make sense. *Other* sockets get skipped only iff
>> this socket had the error-report flag set? This should be done
>> in a consistent manner, which means either not set the failure
>> flag at all and retry for all sockets, or set it for any failed
>> socket delivery and determine the return value based on whether
>> one of the skipped sockets had the error-report flag set.
>
> I can add a check for the flag to allow sockets without the flag set to
> try to send the message:
>
> if ((nlk->flags & NETLINK_BROADCAST_SEND_ERROR) && p->failure) {
> netlink_overrun(sk);
> goto out;
> }
>
> Still, this "skip" behaviour looks to me strange. I don't see why a
> socket should skip if other socket's clone failed. Wouldn't it be better
> to remove this?
Yes, that was the first of my suggestions. I don't care much which
way its done, but it should provide a consistent behaviour, which
means skipping should not depend on the setting of a *different*
socket.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-02-16 14:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-02-16 10:52 [PATCH] netlink: add NETLINK_BROADCAST_REPORT_ERROR socket option Pablo Neira Ayuso
2009-02-16 11:13 ` Patrick McHardy
2009-02-16 14:10 ` Pablo Neira Ayuso
2009-02-16 14:06 ` Patrick McHardy [this message]
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=499972E6.9090204@trash.net \
--to=kaber@trash.net \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pablo@netfilter.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).