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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <q2p412e6f7f1004220754ye723ac1aoc291048312b5818f@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 22:54:27 +0800 From: Changli Gao <xiaosuo@...il.com> To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, jamal <hadi@...erus.ca>, Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] net: batch skb dequeueing from softnet input_pkt_queue On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 10:33 PM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote: > > It does make a difference, Damn it. > > I really really start to think you dont read what I wrote, or you dont > care. I misunderstood it. Sorry. > > Damn, cant you update all the things at once, taking this lock only > once ? > > You focus having an ultra precise count of pkt_queue.len, but we dont > care at all ! We only want a _limit_, or else the box can be killed by > DOS. > > If in practice this limit can be 2*limit, thats OK. > > Cant you understand this ? > > > We need one limit. Not two limits. > > I already told you how to do it, but you ignored me and started yet > another convoluted thing. > > > process_backlog() transfert the queue to its own queue and reset pkt_len > to 0 (Only once) > > End of story. > > Maximum packet queued to this cpu softnet_data will be 2 * old_limit. > > So what ? > Now, I think I really understand. We don't need a precious limit. So only a additional queue is enough. -- Regards, Changli Gao(xiaosuo@...il.com) -- 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