| Message ID | 4EFB1C48.7060407@parallels.com |
|---|---|
| State | Changes Requested, archived |
| Delegated to: | David Miller |
| Headers | show |
diff --git a/net/unix/diag.c b/net/unix/diag.c index dbae8a4..ebec5fc 100644 --- a/net/unix/diag.c +++ b/net/unix/diag.c @@ -113,8 +113,14 @@ static int sk_diag_show_meminfo(struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *nlskb) struct unix_diag_meminfo *mi; mi = UNIX_DIAG_PUT(nlskb, UNIX_DIAG_MEMINFO, sizeof(*mi)); - mi->udiag_len = sk_wmem_alloc_get(sk); - mi->udiag_limit = sk->sk_sndbuf; + + if (sk->sk_state == TCP_LISTEN) { + mi->udiag_len = sk->sk_receive_queue.qlen; + mi->udiag_limit = sk->sk_max_ack_backlog; + } else { + mi->udiag_len = sk_wmem_alloc_get(sk); + mi->udiag_limit = sk->sk_sndbuf; + } return 0;
I propose to reuse the MEMINFO bit and message for this, since it's a) also 2 values b) symmetrical to how inet diag reports the length Is it OK, or is it better to introduce separate bit and message? Signed-off-by: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@parallels.com> --- net/unix/diag.c | 10 ++++++++-- 1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)