Hi Guy,
This is one thing I am confused about.
I am right now setting the sigprocmask
in the callback function :
pkt_callback(...){
if (sigprocmask(SIG_BLOCK, &block_set, NULL) < 0) {
perror("sigprocmask");
exit(1);
}
code ...
if (sigprocmask(SIG_UNBLOCK, &block_set, NULL) < 0) {
On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 8:37 AM, abhinav narain
wrote:
> hi Guy,
>
> What happens if you eliminate that (and any code paths that eliminating
>> that breaks)?
>>
>>
The biggest issue for me to understand is, why is the CPU usage going up
when
two instances of the tool run simultaneously. It doesn't
hi Guy,
> What happens if you eliminate that (and any code paths that eliminating
> that breaks)?
>
> That seems to be the biggest difference between your code and tcpdump's
> code (both your program and tcpdump use pcap_loop() as their main loops).
I turned off SIGPROCMASK stuff ... it did not
On Apr 17, 2013, at 8:03 PM, abhinav narain wrote:
> The other fancy thing which I am doing is setting a SIGPROCMASK to capture
> alarms
> to get to a handler which writes into the file every x minute(and if the
> table is full)
What happens if you eliminate that (and any code paths that elim
On Apr 17, 2013, at 7:10 PM, wen lui wrote:
> I have a program, part of the source codes are:
>
>handle = pcap_open_live(dev, BUFSIZ, 0, 0, errbuf);
>pcap_compile(handle, &fp, filter_exp, 0, mask) == -1
>pcap_setfilter(handle, &fp);
>struct pcap_pkthdr pcap_heade
