On Fri, Sep 08, 2017 at 01:02:47PM +0200, Phil Sutter wrote:
> Hi Hangbin,
>
> On Fri, Sep 08, 2017 at 06:14:56PM +0800, Hangbin Liu wrote:
> [...]
> > diff --git a/lib/libnetlink.c b/lib/libnetlink.c
> > index be7ac86..37cfb5a 100644
> > --- a/lib/libnetlink.c
> > +++ b/lib/libnetlink.c
> > @@ -402,6 +402,59 @@ static void rtnl_dump_error(const struct rtnl_handle
> > *rth,
> > }
> > }
> >
> > +static int rtnl_recvmsg(int fd, struct msghdr *msg, char **buf)
> > +{
> > + struct iovec *iov;
> > + int len = -1, buf_len = 32768;
> > + char *buffer = *buf;
>
> Isn't it possible to make 'buffer' static instead of the two 'buf'
> variables in rtnl_dump_filter_l() and __rtnl_talk()? Then we would have
> only a single buffer which is shared between both functions instead of
> two which are independently allocated.
Do we have to worry about reentrancy? Only arpd is multithreaded in
iproute2 but there might be also other users of libnetlink.
> > +
> > + int flag = MSG_PEEK | MSG_TRUNC;
> > +
> > + if (buffer == NULL)
> > +re_malloc:
> > + buffer = malloc(buf_len);
>
> I think using realloc() here is more appropriate since there is no need
> to free the buffer in beforehand and calling realloc(NULL, len) is
> equivalent to calling malloc(len). I think 'realloc' is also a better
> name for the goto label.
>
> > + if (buffer == NULL) {
> > + fprintf(stderr, "malloc error: no enough buffer\n");
>
> Minor typo here: s/no/not/
>
> > + return -1;
>
> Return -ENOMEM?
Hm... the only caller of rtnl_dump_filter_l only checks if the return
value is negative. Even worse, at least some of the functions calling
__rtnl_talk() check errno (or use perror()) instead, even if it's not
always preserved. That's something for a wider cleanup, I would say.
>
> > + }
> > +
> > + iov = msg->msg_iov;
> > + iov->iov_base = buffer;
> > + iov->iov_len = buf_len;
> > +
> > +re_recv:
>
> Just call this 'recv'? (Not really important though.)
>
> > + len = recvmsg(fd, msg, flag);
> > +
> > + if (len < 0) {
> > + if (errno == EINTR || errno == EAGAIN)
> > + return 0;
>
> Instead of returning 0 (which makes callers retry), goto re_recv?
>
> > + fprintf(stderr, "netlink receive error %s (%d)\n",
> > + strerror(errno), errno);
> > + return len;
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (len == 0) {
> > + fprintf(stderr, "EOF on netlink\n");
> > + return -1;
>
> Return -ENODATA here? (Initially I though about -EOF, but EOF is -1 so
> that would be incorrect).
>
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (len > buf_len) {
> > + free(buffer);
>
> If you use realloc() above, this can be dropped.
>
> > + buf_len = len;
>
> For this to work you have to make buf_len static too, otherwise you will
> unnecessarily reallocate the buffer. Oh, and that also requires the
> single buffer (as pointed out above) because you will otherwise use a
> common buf_len for both static buffers passed to this function.
>
> > + flag = 0;
> > + goto re_malloc;
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (flag != 0) {
> > + flag = 0;
> > + goto re_recv;
> > + }
> > +
> > + *buf = buffer;
> > + return len;
> > +}
> > +
> > int rtnl_dump_filter_l(struct rtnl_handle *rth,
> > const struct rtnl_dump_filter_arg *arg)
> > {
> > @@ -413,31 +466,20 @@ int rtnl_dump_filter_l(struct rtnl_handle *rth,
> > .msg_iov = &iov,
> > .msg_iovlen = 1,
> > };
> > - char buf[32768];
> > + static char *buf = NULL;
>
> If you keep the static buffer in rtnl_recvmsg(), there is no need to
> assign NULL here.
>
> > int dump_intr = 0;
> >
> > - iov.iov_base = buf;
> > while (1) {
> > int status;
> > const struct rtnl_dump_filter_arg *a;
> > int found_done = 0;
> > int msglen = 0;
> >
> > - iov.iov_len = sizeof(buf);
> > - status = recvmsg(rth->fd, &msg, 0);
> > -
> > - if (status < 0) {
> > - if (errno == EINTR || errno == EAGAIN)
> > - continue;
> > - fprintf(stderr, "netlink receive error %s (%d)\n",
> > - strerror(errno), errno);
> > - return -1;
> > - }
> > -
> > - if (status == 0) {
> > - fprintf(stderr, "EOF on netlink\n");
> > - return -1;
> > - }
> > + status = rtnl_recvmsg(rth->fd, &msg, &buf);
> > + if (status < 0)
> > + return status;
> > + else if (status == 0)
> > + continue;
>
> When retrying inside rtnl_recvmsg(), it won't return 0 anymore. I
> believe the whole 'while (1)' loop could go away then.
Doesn't this loop also handle the response divided into multiple
packets?
Michal Kubecek
