[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090727.124011.05728493.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 12:40:11 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: nhorman@...driver.com
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, joe@...l.com, herbert@...dor.apana.org.au,
kuznet@....inr.ac.ru, pekkas@...core.fi, jmorris@...ei.org,
yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org, kaber@...sh.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfrm: export xfrm garbage collector thresholds via
sysctl
From: Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 15:36:25 -0400
> I think that makes sense, since it means we only keep cache entries
> for active connections, and clean them up as soon as they close
> (e.g. I don't really see the advantage to unhashing a xfrm cache
> entry only to recreate it on the next packet sent).
How is this related to the user's problem?
My impression was that they were forwarding IPSEC traffic when
running up against these limits, and that has no socket based
assosciation at all.
Making the XFRM GC limits get computed similarly to how the
ipv4/ipv6 one's do probably makes sense.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists