jamal wrote: > On Wed, 2006-08-02 at 18:27 +0300, Alexey Kuznetsov wrote: > > When a netlink message is not related to a netlink socket, > > it is issued by kernel socket with pid 0. Netlink "pid" has nothing > > to do with current->pid. I called it incorrectly, if it was named > > "port", the confusion would be avoided.
This confusion was the main reason I rewrote rtnetlink.7 manpage. I received 0 comments till now, though ... does it mean it's so good? ;) Can you, Alexey, comment at least pid part? http://www.mail-archive.com/netdev%40vger.kernel.org/msg06166.html > > Jamal, please, review. Did you have reasons to do this? > > The reason was driven by some apps such as quagga/zebra which > get confused when they see pid of 0 for things _they_ added. > Essentially there was lack of consistency, at times the app that made > the kernel change has its pid appear on the resulting netlink message > and at others it was 0 or the large (negative) number when you had > more than 1 socket within the same process. > > CCing Hasso Tepper and more details of the original fix are > here: > http://lists.quagga.net/pipermail/quagga-dev/2005-June/003507.html No, that was different issue and isn't related with issue Alexey poiting to. The issue I complained and you fixed it, Jamal, was that IPv6 related netlink messages had always pid 0 even if they were issued by application. What Alexey pointing to is the change you did earlier - set pid in the messages not related to netlink sockets - ie. changes initiated by user using ioctls for example. -- Hasso Tepper - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
