On 11/7/05, Ram Gupta <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 11/4/05, Nish Aravamudan <[email protected]>
> >
> > In Ram's specific case, I think, the call path is sys_setsockopt() ->
> > sock_setsockopt() -> sock_set_timeout, which has a definition of:
> >
> > static int sock_set_timeout(long *timeo_p, char __user *optval, int
> optlen)
>
> >> Exactly right.
Ok.
> > Ram, what is the expected behavior of negative values in the timeval?
> > And what are you seeing happen right now?
> >
> > As of 2.6.14, looks like we convert any non-zero values into jiffies
> > and store them in sk->sk_{rcv,snd}timeo...
> >
> I don't see any problem from the kernel side but the application
> times out immediately causing certain failures as the schedule_timeout
> returns immediately in case of negative values. Shouldn't there be a
> check for negative values and return error to the application so that
> it can handle it.
I mean more along the lines of what does a man-page say the kernel
should be doing if you request a negative timeout? More explicitly,
what made you think negative timeouts should have a specific effect?
When you say schedule_timeout() returns immediately, I assume your
logs are filling up with "schedule_timeout: wrong timeout ..." ? (You
may need to bump your loglevel). If not, then schedule_timeout() isn't
getting a negative value.
Thanks,
Nish
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]