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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <1475239915.17481.63.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Date:   Fri, 30 Sep 2016 14:51:55 +0200
From:   Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To:     Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...e.dk>
Cc:     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


> > 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?
> 
> Yes, ideally. That goes for FQ-CoDel as well, BTW. LEDE currently
> carries a patch for that which just changes the hard-coded default to
> another hard-coded default. Not sure how to get a good value to use,
> though; and deciding on how large a fraction of memory to use for
> packets starts smelling an awful lot like setting policy in the
> kernel, doesn't it?

Yeah, I agree it does seem awkward.

Perhaps we should instead pick a low limit and let users change it more
easily (i.e. not debugfs)? I don't know a good answer to this either.

johannes