[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20061130.202206.25410613.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 20:22:06 -0800 (PST)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: herbert@...dor.apana.org.au
Cc: kaber@...sh.net, khc@...waw.pl, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@...ts.netfilter.org
Subject: Re: Broken commit: [NETFILTER]: ipt_REJECT: remove largely
duplicate route_reverse function
From: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 17:51:46 +1100
> I'm just emphasising that LL_MAX_HEADER is by no means the *maximum*
> header size in a Linux system.
But it is the maximum "link level" singular header size.
It is MAX_HEADER which is the hack and the main issue.
What MAX_HEADER's setting is trying to do is optimistically allocate
enough for a single level of tunnelling. It does not handle nested
tunneling at all, of course.
> As to getting rid of those ifdefs, here is one idea. We keep a
> read-mostly global variable that represents the actual current
> maximum LL header size. Everytime a new device appears (or if
> its hard header size changes) we update this variable if needed.
>
> Hmm, we don't actually update the hard header size should the
> underlying device change for tunnels. Good thing the tunnels
> only use that as a hint and reallocate if necessary :)
>
> This is not optimal in that it never decreases, but it's certainly
> better than a compile-time constant (e.g., people using distribution
> kernels don't necessarily use tunnels).
I like this idea for the most part. It also deals nicely with, as you
alude to, how the MAX_HEADER scheme uses the space even if you don't
configure any tunnels at all.
Actually, I wonder how antiquated this all is. I bet we could get rid
of MAX_HEADER, then if we have to realloc headroom, we adjust some
per-device header thing which will behave like your global value idea
does. On the next allocation, we'll do the right thing. Although I
cannot come up with a scheme that works without reintroducing another
net_device pointer to sk_buff, which seems necessary to handle arbitrary
nesting. :-/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists