[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1271191086.16881.570.camel@edumazet-laptop>
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 22:38:06 +0200
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@...mens.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.hengli.com.au>,
Paul Moore <paul.moore@...com>,
David Woodhouse <David.Woodhouse@...el.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
qemu-devel <qemu-devel@...gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tun: orphan an skb on tx
Le mardi 13 avril 2010 à 23:25 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin a écrit :
> On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 08:31:03PM +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > Le mardi 13 avril 2010 à 20:39 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin a écrit :
> >
> > > > When a socket with inflight tx packets is closed, we dont block the
> > > > close, we only delay the socket freeing once all packets were delivered
> > > > and freed.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Which is wrong, since this is under userspace control, so you get
> > > unkillable processes.
> > >
> >
> > We do not get unkillable processes, at least with sockets I was thinking
> > about (TCP/UDP ones).
> >
> > Maybe tun sockets can behave the same ?
>
> Looks like that's what my patch does: ip_rcv seems to call
> skb_orphan too.
Well, I was speaking of tx side, you speak of receiving side.
An external flood (coming from another domain) is another problem.
A sender might flood the 'network' inside our domain. How can we
reasonably limit the sender ?
Maybe the answer is 'We can not', but it should be stated somewhere, so
that someone can address this point later.
--
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