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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Mon, 18 Jan 2021 12:15:18 +0100
From:   Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>
To:     menglong8.dong@...il.com
Cc:     kuba@...nel.org, davem@...emloft.net, yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org,
        dong.menglong@....com.cn, daniel@...earbox.net, gnault@...hat.com,
        ast@...nel.org, nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com, ap420073@...il.com,
        edumazet@...gle.com, pabeni@...hat.com, jakub@...udflare.com,
        bjorn.topel@...el.com, keescook@...omium.org,
        viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, rdna@...com, maheshb@...gle.com,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: core: Namespace-ify sysctl_wmem_default
 and sysctl_rmem_default

On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 06:23:19PM +0800, menglong8.dong@...il.com wrote:
> From: Menglong Dong <dong.menglong@....com.cn>
> 
> For now, sysctl_wmem_default and sysctl_rmem_default are globally
> unified. It's not convenient in some case. For example, when we
> use docker and try to control the default udp socket receive buffer
> for each container.
> 
> For that reason, make sysctl_wmem_default and sysctl_rmem_default
> per-namespace.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Menglong Dong <dong.menglong@....com.cn>
> ---

Hey Menglong,

I was about to review the two patches you sent:

1. [PATCH net-next] net: core: Namespace-ify sysctl_rmem_max and sysctl_wmem_max
   https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210117104743.217194-1-dong.menglong@zte.com.cn
2. [PATCH net-next] net: core: Namespace-ify sysctl_wmem_default and sysctl_rmem_default
   https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210117102319.193756-1-dong.menglong@zte.com.cn

and I had to spend some time figuring out that 2. is dependent on 1. I
first thought I got the base wrong.

I'd suggest you resend both patches as a part of a single series with a
cover letter mentioning the goal and use-case for these changes and also
pass --base=<base-commit>
when creating the patch series which makes it way easier to figure out
what to apply it to when wanting to review a series in the larger
context of a tree.

Thanks!
Christian

Powered by blists - more mailing lists