Ciao Sven,

On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 06:55:16PM +0200, Sven Anderson wrote:

> Ok, I'm a little bit confused now, so let me resume: There IS a locking,
> but only if the -r flag is used. So this race condition cannot appear in
> that case. When I'm using -r I don't have to worry, that port 80 packets
> accidently drop into the "rest" (*) bin, correct?

No: the locking applied to -r actually just prevents inconsistencies, eg.
avoid a writer - memcpy() - and a cleaner process - memset() - to operate
symultaneously on the same memory area. The new -l flag will offer the
protection we are talking about in these emails, eg. avoid that port 80
packets accidently drop into the "rest" bin.


> Sure. But I thought, the locking is maybe the cause for the buffers to
> overflow.

Yep, i fully agree. It's very likely that this is the underlying reason.


Cheers,
Paolo

_______________________________________________
pmacct-discussion mailing list
http://www.pmacct.net/#mailinglists

Reply via email to