On 03/28/14 06:50, [email protected] wrote: > + while ((len = recv(sock, buffer, NL_MSG_BUF_SIZE, 0)) > 0) { > + nlh = (struct nlmsghdr *)buffer; > + while ((NLMSG_OK(nlh, len)) && (nlh->nlmsg_type != NLMSG_DONE)) > { > + struct ifaddrmsg *ifa = (struct ifaddrmsg *) > NLMSG_DATA(nlh); > + struct ifinfomsg *ifi = (struct ifinfomsg *) > NLMSG_DATA(nlh); > + struct rtattr *rth = IFA_RTA(ifa); > + int rtl = IFA_PAYLOAD(nlh); > + > + switch (nlh->nlmsg_type) { > + [ ... ] > + nlh = NLMSG_NEXT(nlh, len); > + } > + }
Is there any reason why this code doesn't handle netlink buffer overflows (ENOBUFS) ? From the netlink(7) man page: Netlink is not a reliable protocol. [ ... ] The kernel can't send a netlink message if the socket buffer is full: the message will be dropped and the kernel and the user-space process will no longer have the same view of kernel state. It is up to the application to detect when this happens (via the ENOBUFS error returned by recvmsg(2)) and resynchronize. Bart. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
