On Sat, 2007-02-24 at 17:40 +0100, Patrick McHardy wrote: > Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Sat, 2007-02-24 at 17:17 +0100, Patrick McHardy wrote: > > > > > >>I don't really see why > >>queueing is special though, dropping the packets in the ruleset > >>will break things just as well, as will routing them to a blackhole. > >>I guess the user just needs to be smart enough not to do this. > > > > > > Its user-space and no emergency packet may rely on user-space because it > > most likely is needed to maintain user-space. > > I believe I might have misunderstood the intention of this patch. > > Assuming the user is smart enough not to queue packets destined > to a SOCK_VMIO socket, are you worried about unrelated packets > allocated from the emergency reserve not getting freed fast > enough because they're sitting in a queue? In that case simply > dropping the packets would be fine I guess.
OK, that sounds good. I shall make NF_QUEUE a black hole for emergency packets. Alas, that leaves no way to warn a user about a SOCK_VMIO bound packet treated this way, since, as you said, that is unknown at this point in the chain. Thanks, Peter - 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
