Le 31/05/2017 à 20:34, Flavio Leitner a écrit :
> On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 03:48:06PM +0200, Nicolas Dichtel wrote:
>> Le 31/05/2017 à 14:28, Flavio Leitner a écrit :
>>> On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 10:38:21AM +0200, Nicolas Dichtel wrote:
Le 30/05/2017 à 23:33, Flavio Leitner a écrit :
>
On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 03:48:06PM +0200, Nicolas Dichtel wrote:
> Le 31/05/2017 à 14:28, Flavio Leitner a écrit :
> > On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 10:38:21AM +0200, Nicolas Dichtel wrote:
> >> Le 30/05/2017 à 23:33, Flavio Leitner a écrit :
> >>> Don't include netns id for notifications broadcasts
Le 31/05/2017 à 14:28, Flavio Leitner a écrit :
> On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 10:38:21AM +0200, Nicolas Dichtel wrote:
>> Le 30/05/2017 à 23:33, Flavio Leitner a écrit :
>>> Don't include netns id for notifications broadcasts when the
>>> socket and the skb are in the same netns because it will be
>>>
On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 10:38:21AM +0200, Nicolas Dichtel wrote:
> Le 30/05/2017 à 23:33, Flavio Leitner a écrit :
> > Don't include netns id for notifications broadcasts when the
> > socket and the skb are in the same netns because it will be
> > an error which can't be distinguished from a peer
Le 30/05/2017 à 23:33, Flavio Leitner a écrit :
> Don't include netns id for notifications broadcasts when the
> socket and the skb are in the same netns because it will be
> an error which can't be distinguished from a peer netns failing
> to allocate an id.
I don't understand the problem.
Don't include netns id for notifications broadcasts when the
socket and the skb are in the same netns because it will be
an error which can't be distinguished from a peer netns failing
to allocate an id.
Signed-off-by: Flavio Leitner
---
net/netlink/af_netlink.c | 6 --
1