linux-kernel - Re: [RFC V1 1/1] net: cdc_ncm: Reduce memory use when kernel memory low

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 12 Jun 2017 13:32:26 +0100
From:   "Baxter, Jim" <jim_baxter@...tor.com>
To:     Oliver Neukum <oneukum@...e.com>
CC:     "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-usb@...r.kernel.org" <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC V1 1/1] net: cdc_ncm: Reduce memory use when kernel memory
 low

From: Oliver Neukum (oneukum@...e.com) Sent: Mon, 12 Jun 2017 12:24:07 +0200

> Am Dienstag, den 23.05.2017, 20:06 +0100 schrieb Jim Baxter:
>> From: David S. Miller (davem@...emloft.net)
>> Sent: Tue, 23 May 2017 11:26:25 -0400 
>>>
>>> From: Oliver Neukum <oneukum@...e.com>
>>> Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 10:42:48 +0200
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We could use a counter. After the first failure, do it once, after the
>>>> second twice and so on. And reset the counter as a higher order
>>>> allocation works. (just bound it somewhere)
>>>
>>> So an exponential backoff, that might work.
>>>
>>
>> As an idea I have created this patch as an addition to the original patch
>> in this series.
>>
>> Would this be acceptable?
>>
>> At the moment I have capped the value at 10, does anyone think it needs to
>> be much higher then that?
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I am working through mail backlog. If I may ask, has this patch proposal
> had a result or does something need to be done still?
> 
> 	Regards
> 		Oliver
> 
Hi,

I have not received any response to my additional patch yet.

Do you think I should submit it as a second RFC patchset?

Regards,
Jim