netdev - Re: SOMAXCONN = 128, but max defaults to 2048

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: <CAGVGHmtT1UQn4oZiSd_uzBQLcZextA3Hap2ZLhgKG3A3xWfkqg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Sat, 8 Oct 2011 14:44:29 +0200
From:	Olaf van der Spek <ml@...pek.org>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: SOMAXCONN = 128, but max defaults to 2048

On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
> Le samedi 08 octobre 2011 à 13:51 +0200, Olaf van der Spek a écrit :
>> Is the name of SOMAXCONN wrong and is it actually defining the default?
>> Would there be a disadvantage to defining SOMAXCONN as INT_MAX and
>> letting the kernel control the actual max?
>>
>
> You mean : remove somaxconn tunable ?

No, I mean basically removing the compile-time value and only using
the run-time value (from the kernel).

> accept()/listen() is not bound to TCP only.

What else is that value used for?

> We had a recent discussion on the matter lately, but Hagen Paul Pfeifer
> did not polish his patches enough :
>
> http://lists.openwall.net/netdev/2011/03/20/3

Isn't it a single-line change?

Olaf
--
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