[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140122152036.GB7269@order.stressinduktion.org>
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 16:20:36 +0100
From: Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
To: Dan Ballard <dan@...dstab.net>
Cc: Lennart Poettering <lennart@...ttering.net>, kay.sievers@...y.org,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Eliezer Tamir <eliezer.tamir@...ux.intel.com>,
Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>,
Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] Per socket value for max datagram queue length
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 07:11:20AM -0800, Dan Ballard wrote:
> diff --git a/net/core/sock.c b/net/core/sock.c
> index 5393b4b..1ff69d1 100644
> --- a/net/core/sock.c
> +++ b/net/core/sock.c
> @@ -915,6 +915,10 @@ set_rcvbuf:
> sk->sk_max_pacing_rate);
> break;
>
> + case SO_MAX_DGRAM_QLEN:
> + sk->sk_max_ack_backlog = val;
> + break;
> +
Shouldn't the backlog be capped for unprivileged users to some configurable
value? I even think that max_dgram_qlen should be the upper bound.
I guess it is not that serious as socket read accounting does account all
packets which sit in the backlog queue.
Greetings,
Hannes
--
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