netdev - Re: bonding: flow control regression [was Re: bridging: flow control regression]

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]

Date:	Tue, 2 Nov 2010 16:03:11 +0900
From:	Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, Jay Vosburgh <fubar@...ibm.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: bonding: flow control regression [was Re: bridging: flow
 control regression]

On Tue, Nov 02, 2010 at 05:53:42AM +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Le mardi 02 novembre 2010 à 11:06 +0900, Simon Horman a écrit :
> 
> > Thanks for the explanation.
> > I'm not entirely sure how much of a problem this is in practice.
> 
> Maybe for virtual devices (tunnels, bonding, ...), it would make sense
> to delay the orphaning up to the real device.

That was my initial thought. Could you give me some guidance
on how that might be done so I can try and make a patch to test?

> But if the socket send buffer is very large, it would defeat the flow
> control any way...

I'm primarily concerned about a situation where
UDP packets are sent as fast as possible, indefinitely.
And in that scenario, I think it would need to be a rather large buffer.

--
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