| To: | Rick Jones <rick.jones2@xxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Must every packet have a creating socket? |
| From: | Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 22 Apr 2005 13:39:46 +0200 |
| Cc: | Neil Horman <nhorman@xxxxxxxxxx>, jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>, linux-net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <4266FFC4.6020305@hp.com> (Rick Jones's message of "Wed, 20 Apr 2005 18:20:04 -0700") |
| References: | <20050420172944.69275.qmail@web51501.mail.yahoo.com> <4266FFC4.6020305@hp.com> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Gnus/5.110002 (No Gnus v0.2) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux) |
Rick Jones <rick.jones2@xxxxxx> writes: >> Can I think that every packet (e.g. IP packet) must >> have a corresponding creating socket? (i.e. Must every >> packet be created by a socket?) > > No. ICMP messages come to mind - although I _suppose_ that since > those are in response to other traffic, you could claim it was in > response to something sent from a "socket" or "endpoint" - depends on > how far away you consider it to still be from a socket. Actually Linux has kernel private sockets for ICMP. Very old Linux didnt, but it required ugly special cases in the transmit path, so it was removed. -Andi |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: NAPI, e100, and system performance problem, Andi Kleen |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Problem with IPSEC tunnel mode, Wolfgang Walter |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Must every packet have a creating socket? (was Re: Does a forwarded packet has a local socket with it?), Rick Jones |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Must every packet have a creating socket? (was Re: Does a forwarded packet has a local socket with it?), Park Lee |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |