From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5321FA328D for ; Tue, 22 Oct 2019 18:50:44 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DC4A1BF3D; Tue, 22 Oct 2019 18:50:44 +0200 (CEST) Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 781851BF33 for ; Tue, 22 Oct 2019 18:50:42 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=294; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1571763042; x=1572972642; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=loE3Af4EpcDAfaVFxvQci/NEdkmN8gpmmsAnmYS/Nfw=; b=ZDbxSdksENq0RNrwAncJrtaAM2l4kQnSiO8f3wv4PWzZ2Dk4f+WlGCqz oXdDpG8f2Gd14RoNh2sONNmzcfDwqmw18h2u3czo6T52FIpHafOx+c6Pz pSOmhLt22gX7iqz1Lx8K3jVHXrkxUpK2q0rnU6YnHq8zwdCo4t0D0hWoR o=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AEAACMMq9d/4kNJK1lGgEBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQMBAQEBEQEBAQICAQEBAYFnBQEBAQELAYIfgXI0jD6IXJkxgXsJAQEBDAE?= =?us-ascii?q?BLwEBhEACgyokNAkOAgMJAQEEAQEBAgEFBG2FQ4VLAQEBAwE6PwULAgEINhA?= =?us-ascii?q?yJQIEDg2FciCxN4InikSBNgGMDhiBf4QjPoozBK1eCh2CB5UeI4IrAZcip30?= =?us-ascii?q?CERWBMiA5gVhwFYMoTxAUkUxDjzKBJAEB?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.68,216,1569283200"; d="scan'208";a="654320955" Received: from alln-core-4.cisco.com ([173.36.13.137]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 22 Oct 2019 16:50:41 +0000 Received: from XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com (xch-rcd-001.cisco.com [173.37.102.11]) by alln-core-4.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x9MGofId027446 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 22 Oct 2019 16:50:41 GMT Received: from xch-aln-004.cisco.com (173.36.7.14) by XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com (173.37.102.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Tue, 22 Oct 2019 11:50:40 -0500 Received: from xch-aln-004.cisco.com ([173.36.7.14]) by XCH-ALN-004.cisco.com ([173.36.7.14]) with mapi id 15.00.1473.003; Tue, 22 Oct 2019 11:50:40 -0500 From: "Jakub Grajciar -X (jgrajcia - PANTHEON TECHNOLOGIES at Cisco)" To: Stephen Hemminger CC: "dev@dpdk.org" Thread-Topic: [PATCH] net/memif: fix invalid unix domain address length Thread-Index: AQHViPMA+/M9svu3uUq9hT2J2NB+2adnL+kA//+tR5A= Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2019 16:50:40 +0000 Message-ID: <3462daa368f8426eac210f77dc812218@XCH-ALN-004.cisco.com> References: <20191022160829.21664-1-jgrajcia@cisco.com> <20191022093730.36cc5075@hermes.lan> In-Reply-To: <20191022093730.36cc5075@hermes.lan> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [10.61.229.38] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.37.102.11, xch-rcd-001.cisco.com X-Outbound-Node: alln-core-4.cisco.com Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/memif: fix invalid unix domain address length X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" > Why does this not use abstract unix domain socket naming? > That would be much less error prone, because then the socket would > disappear when all applications using it are closed. How would that work with containers? I'll consider that for a new patch, ma= ybe it could be optional?