[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1172336149.28579.11.camel@lappy>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 17:55:49 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@....uio.no>,
Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 18/29] netfilter: notify about NF_QUEUE
vs emergency skbs
On Sat, 2007-02-24 at 17:40 +0100, Patrick McHardy wrote:
> Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Sat, 2007-02-24 at 17:17 +0100, Patrick McHardy wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I don't really see why
> >>queueing is special though, dropping the packets in the ruleset
> >>will break things just as well, as will routing them to a blackhole.
> >>I guess the user just needs to be smart enough not to do this.
> >
> >
> > Its user-space and no emergency packet may rely on user-space because it
> > most likely is needed to maintain user-space.
>
> I believe I might have misunderstood the intention of this patch.
>
> Assuming the user is smart enough not to queue packets destined
> to a SOCK_VMIO socket, are you worried about unrelated packets
> allocated from the emergency reserve not getting freed fast
> enough because they're sitting in a queue? In that case simply
> dropping the packets would be fine I guess.
OK, that sounds good. I shall make NF_QUEUE a black hole for emergency
packets.
Alas, that leaves no way to warn a user about a SOCK_VMIO bound packet
treated this way, since, as you said, that is unknown at this point in
the chain.
Thanks,
Peter
-
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