From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: [RFC] netlink broadcast return value Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2009 15:17:39 +0100 Message-ID: <49903B03.2040302@trash.net> References: <4985A4C5.4050908@netfilter.org> <20090202.140533.121159038.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: pablo@netfilter.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from stinky.trash.net ([213.144.137.162]:55780 "EHLO stinky.trash.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757368AbZBIORn (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Feb 2009 09:17:43 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20090202.140533.121159038.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: David Miller wrote: > From: Pablo Neira Ayuso > Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2009 14:33:57 +0100 > >> In short, I think that the change that I'm proposing would also require >> to fix some netlink_broadcast() clients to skip ENOBUFS errors: they are >> not meaningful for them since they assume that Netlink is unreliable and >> so the return value does not provide any useful information. > > I think this analysis is accurate. We have at least one case where the caller wants to know of any successful delivery. Keymanager queries done by xfrm_state want to know whether an acquire was delivered to any keymanager. So we need to continue to indicate this, maybe using a different errno code than -ENOBUFS. I don't have a suggestion which one to use though.