netdev - Re: route/max_size sysctl in ipv4

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAOxq_8OtQ0WD-PKBd4kX0JwZiaStqJ-cQiQRhWnTAK9Q0JquxA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 5 Jan 2015 16:43:30 -0800
From:	Ani Sinha <ani@...sta.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: route/max_size sysctl in ipv4

On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 4:36 PM, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
> From: Ani Sinha <ani@...sta.com>
> Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2015 15:48:11 -0800
>
>> I am looking at the code and it looks like since the route cache for
>> ipv4 was removed from the kernel, this sysctl parameter no longer
>> serves the same purpose. It does not look like it is even used in the
>> ipv4/route.c module. Is there an equivalent sysctl parameter limiting
>> the number of route entries in the kernel? Or is there now no
>> mechanism to limit the number of route entries?
>
> There is nothing to limit, since the cache was removed.

Shouldn't the documentation be updated to reflect that? Also what's
the point of having a dummy variable that does nothing? Should we not
simply remove it?
--
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