On Thu, 28 Sep 2017 21:33:45 +0800
Hangbin Liu [off-list ref] wrote:

 
+static int __rtnl_recvmsg(int fd, struct msghdr *msg, int flags)
+{
+	int len;
+
+	do {
+		len = recvmsg(fd, msg, flags);
+	} while (len < 0 && (errno == EINTR || errno == EAGAIN));
+
+	if (len < 0) {
+		fprintf(stderr, "netlink receive error %s (%d)\n",
+			strerror(errno), errno);
+		return -errno;
+	}
+
+	if (len == 0) {
+		fprintf(stderr, "EOF on netlink\n");
+		return -ENODATA;
+	}
+
+	return len;
+}
+
+static int rtnl_recvmsg(int fd, struct msghdr *msg, char **answer)
+{
+	struct iovec *iov = msg->msg_iov;
+	char *buf;
+	int len;
+
+	iov->iov_base = NULL;
+	iov->iov_len = 0;
+
+	len = __rtnl_recvmsg(fd, msg, MSG_PEEK | MSG_TRUNC);
+	if (len < 0)
+		return len;
+
+	buf = malloc(len);
+	if (!buf) {
+		fprintf(stderr, "malloc error: not enough buffer\n");
+		return -ENOMEM;
+	}
+
+	iov->iov_base = buf;
+	iov->iov_len = len;
+
+	len = __rtnl_recvmsg(fd, msg, 0);
+	if (len < 0) {
+		free(buf);
+		return len;
+	}
+
+	if (answer)
+		*answer = buf;
+	else
+		free(buf);
+
+	return len;
+}

Doubling the number of system calls per message is not going to make
users with 5,000,000 routes or 1000 vlans, or 10,000 tunnels happy.
Please rethink this.