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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <87h98x5ube.fsf@toke.dk>
Date:   Fri, 30 Sep 2016 16:35:49 +0200
From:   Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...e.dk>
To:     Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
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

Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net> writes:

>> > 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.

Hmm, I'll talk it over with some of the LEDE people who are more used to
dealing with these sorts of memory-constrained devices than I am. Will
send a patch if we come up with a good solution :)

-Toke