netdev - Re: [PATCH] tipc: flow control should not account for sk

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:	Thu, 04 Oct 2012 15:55:13 +0200
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	Erik Hugne <erik.hugne@...csson.com>
Cc:	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jon Maloy <jon.maloy@...csson.com>,
	"ying.xue@...driver.com" <ying.xue@...driver.com>,
	"paul.gortmaker@...driver.com" <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tipc: flow control should not account for sk_rcvbuf

On Thu, 2012-10-04 at 14:12 +0200, Erik Hugne wrote:
> > And this limit is tested _before_ queueing to backlog if socket is owned
> > by the user ?
> >
> > You'll have to demonstrate this in the changelog.
> >
> > Again, I dont think this patch is safe, we need an explicit limit.
> You're right Eric..
> 
> Another way of solving it is to increase the default sk_rcvbuf size to
> (TIPC_FLOW_CONTROL_WIN * 2 * TIPC_MAX_USER_MSG_SIZE)
> at socket creation.
> 
> Do you think that would be acceptable?
> 

If its a tipc constant, you also could use

if (sk_add_backlog(sk, buf,
                   TIPC_FLOW_CONTROL_WIN * 2 * TIPC_MAX_USER_MSG_SIZE))

no ?

But yes, a protocol is allowed to change sk_rcvbuf value (its done for
TCP for example, with a limit to tcp_rmem[2] (between 4 and 6 Mbytes)



--
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