netdev - Re: [PATCH 3/3] mac80211: Set lower memory limit for non-VHT devices

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: <1475235230.17481.43.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Date:   Fri, 30 Sep 2016 13:33:50 +0200
From:   Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To:     Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...e.dk>,
        make-wifi-fast@...ts.bufferbloat.net,
        linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] mac80211: Set lower memory limit for non-VHT devices

On Fri, 2016-09-23 at 21:59 +0200, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
> Small devices can run out of memory from queueing too many packets.
> If VHT is not supported by the PHY, having more than 4 MBytes of
> total queue in the TXQ intermediate queues is not needed, and so we
> can safely limit the memory usage in these cases and avoid OOM.

I kinda see the logic here - we really don't need to queue as much if
we can't possibly transmit it out quickly - but it seems to me we
should also throw in some kind of limit that's relative to the amount
of memory you have on the system?

I've applied these anyway though. I just don't like your assumption (b)
much as the rationale for it.

johannes