[lkml]   [2002]   [Feb]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: want opinions on possible glitch in 2.4 network error reporti ng
"Richard B. Johnson" wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Feb 2002, Perches, Joe wrote:
> > > That is correct UDP behaviour
> >
> > Do you think this is the correct PacketSocket/RAW behaviour?
> Yes.
> > How does one guarantee a send/sendto/write?
> > -
> Easy, you use send() or write(). These work on stream protocol TCP/IP
> where there is a "connection". Connectionless protocols, i.e., UDP are
> not guaranteed to do anything useful -- but, because of their speed,
> they can be useful with some help from user-mode code.

Is there any syscall that can guarantee that a single packet has been sent out
over the wire? Suppose I want to broadcast an ARP packet. If I make a packet
socket and call sendto() on it, I want a guarantee that the packet will make it
out onto the wire, or the sendto() should fail.

UDP failing I can understand (kind of, anyway) but for raw sockets, packet
sockets, etc. I think there should be at least some kind of mechanism to bypass
all the congestion controls and either shove the packet onto the device's tx
buffer or return a failure code.

The possibility of random dropping of packets in the kernel means that an
infinite loop on sendto() will chew up the entire machine even if you've only
got a 10Mbit/s link. This seems just wrong.


Chris Friesen | MailStop: 043/33/F10
Nortel Networks | work: (613) 765-0557
3500 Carling Avenue | fax: (613) 765-2986
Nepean, ON K2H 8E9 Canada | email:
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:24    [W:0.055 / U:9.744 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site