[1/2] ss: fix the incorrect value of total UNIX_DIAG_* number

From: Shan Wei <davidshan@tencent.com>

UNIX_DIAG_MAX is included in enum type.
It is equal to the total number of enum element.

But lots of enum MAX value is defined as the max enum element, e.g. INET_DIAG_MAX, XFRMA_MAX. 
The right fixing way seems to define UNIX_DIAG_MAX as UNIX_DIAG_MEMINFO,
but this way will break other user application.

So, just fix it on user application.


Signed-off-by: Shan Wei <davidshan@tencent.com>
---
 misc/ss.c |    4 ++--
 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 15:15:16 +0800
Shan Wei <shanwei88@gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Shan Wei <davidshan@tencent.com>
> 
> UNIX_DIAG_MAX is included in enum type.
> It is equal to the total number of enum element.
> 
> But lots of enum MAX value is defined as the max enum element, e.g. INET_DIAG_MAX, XFRMA_MAX. 
> The right fixing way seems to define UNIX_DIAG_MAX as UNIX_DIAG_MEMINFO,
> but this way will break other user application.
> 
> So, just fix it on user application.

Nak, we should fix this in the kernel. It is ridiculous to have
a convention that is true for one route attribute type but not
for all of them.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 15:15:16 +0800
Shan Wei <shanwei88@gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Shan Wei <davidshan@tencent.com>
> 
> UNIX_DIAG_MAX is included in enum type.
> It is equal to the total number of enum element.
> 
> But lots of enum MAX value is defined as the max enum element, e.g. INET_DIAG_MAX, XFRMA_MAX. 
> The right fixing way seems to define UNIX_DIAG_MAX as UNIX_DIAG_MEMINFO,
> but this way will break other user application.
> 
> So, just fix it on user application.
> 
> 
> Signed-off-by: Shan Wei <davidshan@tencent.com>
> ---
>  misc/ss.c |    4 ++--
>  1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/misc/ss.c b/misc/ss.c
> index 4017918..5f70a26 100644
> --- a/misc/ss.c
> +++ b/misc/ss.c
> @@ -2011,12 +2011,12 @@ void unix_list_print(struct unixstat *list, struct filter *f)
>  static int unix_show_sock(struct nlmsghdr *nlh, struct filter *f)
>  {
>  	struct unix_diag_msg *r = NLMSG_DATA(nlh);
> -	struct rtattr *tb[UNIX_DIAG_MAX+1];
> +	struct rtattr *tb[UNIX_DIAG_MAX];
>  	char name[128];
>  	int peer_ino;
>  	int rqlen;
>  
> -	parse_rtattr(tb, UNIX_DIAG_MAX, (struct rtattr*)(r+1),
> +	parse_rtattr(tb, UNIX_DIAG_MAX-1, (struct rtattr*)(r+1),
>  		     nlh->nlmsg_len - NLMSG_LENGTH(sizeof(*r)));
>  
>  	if (netid_width)

Ok, I'll put this in but with a big juicy comment so that nobody
else is surprised by the fact we got it wrong here.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html