Hi Alexey, On Wed, 2006-08-02 at 18:27 +0300, Alexey Kuznetsov wrote: > Hello! > > When a netlink message is not related to a netlink socket, > it is issued by kernel socket with pid 0. Netlink "pid" has nothing > to do with current->pid. I called it incorrectly, if it was named "port", > the confusion would be avoided. > > Jamal, please, review. Did you have reasons to do this? >
The reason was driven by some apps such as quagga/zebra which get confused when they see pid of 0 for things _they_ added. Essentially there was lack of consistency, at times the app that made the kernel change has its pid appear on the resulting netlink message and at others it was 0 or the large (negative) number when you had more than 1 socket within the same process. CCing Hasso Tepper and more details of the original fix are here: http://lists.quagga.net/pipermail/quagga-dev/2005-June/003507.html BTW, Alexey - if you have a chance can you look at the breakage of sendmsg() in relation to multicast that exists today? It came in as a result of trying to extend the number of multicast groups to be > 32 (libnetlink assumes its existence). I can explain more if what i said didnt make sense. cheers, jamal - 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
