On Sat, Mar 06, 2021 at 12:21:59AM +0100, Florian Westphal wrote:
> Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> > > If I understand correctly, the connection tracking netlink interface
> > > is an exception here because it has its own handling of dealing with
> > > congestion ("more reliable"?) so you need to disa
Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> > If I understand correctly, the connection tracking netlink interface
> > is an exception here because it has its own handling of dealing with
> > congestion ("more reliable"?) so you need to disable the "default
> > congestion control"?
>
> In conntrack, you have to c
On Fri, Mar 05, 2021 at 02:43:05PM -0500, Alexander Ahring Oder Aring wrote:
> Hi Pablo,
>
> I appreciate your very detailed response. Thank you.
>
> On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 10:04 PM Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> >
> > Hi Alexander,
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 04, 2021 at 03:57:28PM -0500, Alexander Aring w
Hi Pablo,
I appreciate your very detailed response. Thank you.
On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 10:04 PM Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
>
> Hi Alexander,
>
> On Thu, Mar 04, 2021 at 03:57:28PM -0500, Alexander Aring wrote:
> > This patch adds a note to the netlink manpage that if NETLINK_NO_ENOBUFS
> > is set t
Hi Alexander,
On Thu, Mar 04, 2021 at 03:57:28PM -0500, Alexander Aring wrote:
> This patch adds a note to the netlink manpage that if NETLINK_NO_ENOBUFS
> is set there is no additional handling to make netlink reliable. It just
> disables the error notification.
A bit more background on this tog
This patch adds a note to the netlink manpage that if NETLINK_NO_ENOBUFS
is set there is no additional handling to make netlink reliable. It just
disables the error notification. The used word "avoid" receiving ENOBUFS
errors can be interpreted that netlink tries to do some additional queue
handlin
