[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20091204125233.eea7de39.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 12:52:33 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Vlad Yasevich <vladislav.yasevich@...com>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Linux SCTP Dev Mailing list <linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul <andrei@...el.org>
Subject: Re: pull request: SCTP updates for net-next
On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 11:23:14 -0500
Vlad Yasevich <vladislav.yasevich@...com> wrote:
> >
> > Overall, it would be way simpler and saner to clamp this value to some
> > explicit time period, IMO.
> >
> > <pulls number out of thin air>
> >
> > --- a/net/sctp/socket.c~a
> > +++ a/net/sctp/socket.c
> > @@ -2086,9 +2086,8 @@ static int sctp_setsockopt_autoclose(str
> > return -EINVAL;
> > if (copy_from_user(&sp->autoclose, optval, optlen))
> > return -EFAULT;
> > - /* make sure it won't exceed MAX_SCHEDULE_TIMEOUT */
> > - if (sp->autoclose > (MAX_SCHEDULE_TIMEOUT / HZ) )
> > - sp->autoclose = MAX_SCHEDULE_TIMEOUT / HZ ;
> > + /* make sure it won't exceed one hour */
> > + sp->autoclose = min_t(u32, sp->autoclose, 60 * 60);
> >
>
> But that may not be long enough. The spec doesn't impose limits
> and it's really up to the application to decide how long it wants
> to keep idle connections open. Thus any limits shorter the maximum
> supported by kernel are really artificial and may not be sufficient.
Could make ->autoclose a u64? That fixes any 32bit-vs-64bit
inconsistencies and allows for an effectively infinite period.
--
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