| 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: <20150105.195128.794605376092864881.davem@davemloft.net> Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2015 19:51:28 -0500 (EST) From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> To: ani@...sta.com Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: route/max_size sysctl in ipv4 From: Ani Sinha <ani@...sta.com> Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2015 16:43:30 -0800 > 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? There is nothing to update, the behavior is completely transparent. Absolutely no cache entries exist, therefore the limit cannot be reached. The sysctl is kept so that scripts reading it don't suddenly stop working. We can't just remove sysctl values. -- 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