linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] net: compute a more reasonable default ip6_rt_max

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1338003580.10135.6.camel@edumazet-glaptop>
Date:	Sat, 26 May 2012 05:39:40 +0200
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	Arun Sharma <asharma@...com>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: compute a more reasonable default ip6_rt_max_size

On Fri, 2012-05-25 at 17:44 -0700, Arun Sharma wrote:
> On 5/25/12 5:11 PM, David Miller wrote:
> 
> >> These were not admin configured routes. They were discovered via ipv6
> >> neighbor discovery.
> >
> > Then such default routes should either be:
> >
> > 1) Passed over by GC
> >
> > 2) Trigger neighbour discovery when GC'd
> 
> It's possible that there is a bug somewhere - we didn't get a chance to 
> dig deeper. What we observed is that as we got close to the 4096 limit, 
> some hosts were becoming unreachable. A modest increase in the routing 
> table size made things better.
> 
>   -Arun

But your patch is not a  "modest increase", so whats the deal ?

A modest increase would be 8192 instead of 4096, regardless of RAM size.



--
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/