Christoph Lameter a écrit :
quoted text
> On Tue, 25 Aug 2009, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> 
>>> The initial point was that the SNMP counters are not updated if IP_RECVERR
>>> is not set which is clearly a bug and your and my patch addresses that.
>> Technically speaking, the send() syscall is in error. Frame is not sent, so
>> there is no drop at all. Like trying to send() from a bad user buffer, or write()
>> to a too big file...
> 
> Frame is submitted to the IP layer which discards it. That is the
> definition of an output discard.
> 

Last patch accounts for this *error* AFAIK, or did I missed something ?


quoted text
>> Question is : should we just allow send() to return an error (-ENOBUF) regardless
>> of IP_RECVERR being set or not ? I dont think it would be so bad after all.
>> Most apps probably dont care, or already handle the error.
> 
> Some applications will then start to fail because so far you can send with
> impunity without getting errors. AFAICT IP_RECVERR was added to preserve
> that behavior. Your patch is changing basic send() semantics.

Sorry ???, I guess your machines have plenty available LOWMEM then, and kmalloc() never fail then...

man P send

      ENOBUFS
              Insufficient resources were available in the system to perform the operation.

basic send() semantics are respected.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html