netdev - Re: iproute uses too small of a receive buffer

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: <4AE8A48A.1060407@trash.net>
Date:	Wed, 28 Oct 2009 21:07:38 +0100
From:	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
To:	Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>
CC:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>,
	NetDev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: iproute uses too small of a receive buffer

Ben Greear wrote:
> On 10/28/2009 12:50 PM, Patrick McHardy wrote:
> 
>>> And, even 1MB may not be enough for some scenarios.  So, probably
>>> best to
>>> let users over-ride the initial setting on cmd-line.  If not, then use
>>> a large value to start with.
>>
>> How about this? It uses 1MB as receive buf limit by default (without
>> increasing /proc/sys/net/core/rmem_max it will be limited by less
>> however) and allows to specify the size manually using "-rcvbuf X"
>> (-r is already used, so you need to specify at least -rc).
>>
>> Additionally rtnl_listen() continues on ENOBUFS after printing the
>> error message.
> 
> Looks good..except:
> 
> If rmem_max is smaller than 1M, will that cause setsocktopt to
> fail and thus fail early out of rtnl_open_byproto?

No, the kernel takes the value as a hint and only uses the
maximum allowable value:

	case SO_RCVBUF:
		/* Don't error on this BSD doesn't and if you think
		   about it this is right. Otherwise apps have to
		   play 'guess the biggest size' games. RCVBUF/SNDBUF
		   are treated in BSD as hints */

		if (val > sysctl_rmem_max)
			val = sysctl_rmem_max;

> Maybe we should only print errors but not return in that method
> when setsockopt fails?
> 
> In another project, I ended up trying ever smaller values until one
> worked in order to get near what the user wanted even if rmem_max
> was configured smaller.  Not sure if that is worth doing here or not.

I think it should be fine this way.
--
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