[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101001193958.GP14068@sgi.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 14:39:58 -0500
From: Robin Holt <holt@....com>
To: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>,
"Pekka Savola (ipv6)" <pekkas@...core.fi>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>,
Vlad Yasevich <vladislav.yasevich@...com>,
Sridhar Samudrala <sri@...ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-decnet-user@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org
Subject: sysctl_{tcp,udp,sctp}_mem overflow on 16TB system.
On a 16TB system, we noticed that sysctl_tcp_mem[2] and sysctl_udp_mem[2]
were negative. Code review indicates that the same should occur with
sysctl_sctp_mem[2].
There are a couple ways we could address this. The one which appears most
reasonable would be to change the struct proto defintion for sysctl_mem
from an int to a long and handle all the associated fallout.
An alternative is to limit the calculation to 1/2 INT_MAX. The downside
being that the administrator could not tune the system to use more than
INT_MAX memory when much more is available.
Is there a compelling reason to not change the structure's definition
over to longs instead of ints and deal with the fallout from that change?
Thanks,
Robin Holt
--
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