netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH - RFC] [1/2] 2.6 must-fix list - kernel error reporting

To: James Morris <jmorris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH - RFC] [1/2] 2.6 must-fix list - kernel error reporting
From: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 22:09:05 -0700
Cc: jkenisto@xxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, akpm@xxxxxxxx, jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx, alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, rddunlap@xxxxxxxx, kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <Mutt.LNX.4.44.0307120135120.21806-100000@excalibur.intercode.com.au>
References: <3F0DB9A5.23723BE1@us.ibm.com> <Mutt.LNX.4.44.0307120135120.21806-100000@excalibur.intercode.com.au>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 01:37:44 +1000 (EST)
James Morris <jmorris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Thu, 10 Jul 2003, Jim Keniston wrote:
> 
> > That begs the question: do we trust that nobody but the kernel will send
> > packets to a NETLINK_KERROR socket?  Ordinary users can't, but any root
> > application can.  Without kerror_netlink_rcv(), such packets don't get
> > dequeued.
> 
> Indeed, the kernel socket buffer fills up.
> 
> I think this needs to be addressed in the netlink code, per the patch 
> below.

Looks good, I'll apply this.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>