On Thu, 9 Jan 2025 23:19:40 +0000 Carlos Llamas wrote: > On Thu, Jan 09, 2025 at 12:13:00PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > On Thu, 9 Jan 2025 11:48:24 -0800 Li Li wrote: > > > Cleaning up in the NETLINK_URELEASE notifier is better since we > > > register the process with the netlink socket. I'll change the code > > > accordingly. > > > > Hm. Thought I already told you this. Maybe I'm mixing up submissions. > > > > Please the unbind callback or possibly the sock priv infra > > (genl_sk_priv_get, sock_priv_destroy etc). > > Sorry, it was me that suggested NETLINK_URELEASE. BTW, I did try those > genl_family callbacks first but I couldn't get them to work right away > so I moved on. I'll have a closer look now to figure out what I did > wrong. Thanks for the suggestion Jakub! Hm, that's probably because there is no real multicast group here :( genl_sk_priv_get() and co. may work better in that case. your suggestion of NETLINK_URELEASE may work too, tho, I think it's the most error prone
