> I've thought about this problem before, in the context of a TCP
> sender, where the best solution is both (a) hard and (b) significantly
> different. I had not thought about it in the case of UDP, but yes,
> that could be a significant issue, particularly since UDP packets on
> the receive queue can never be coalesced (so there's DoS potential).
>
> I think adding a (sort of) tail pointer to the socket buffer might be
> helpful. I think you want it to point to the mbuf before the last
> *record* in the socket buffer, in order for sbcompress() to do its
oh yes, this is what i am actually implementing now:
struct sockbuf {
...
struct mbuf *sb_mb_head; /* the old sb_mb */
struct mbuf *sb_mb_tail; /* last record in chain */
...
the renaming of sb_mb is just a temporary thing to easily locate
where the field is used. sb_mb_tail is only significant if sb_mb_head!=NULL
and it is such that
sb_mb_tail->m_nextpkt is always NULL.
The change seems not too invasive, the only place which is
unclear to me is uipc_usrreq.c:unp_scan().
Does the above sounds right ?
cheers
luigi
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
