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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 09:57:19 +0100 From: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com> To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> Cc: Andrei Vagin <avagin@...il.com>, Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: linux-next: BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference in __sk_mem_raise_allocated() On Mon, 2016-11-14 at 16:31 -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Mon, 2016-11-14 at 15:58 -0800, Andrei Vagin wrote: > > > > > Yes, you are right. It works if we set .memory_allocated and .sysctl_mem. > > Now the question would be : > > Are we okay if UDP and UDPlite share the same limits ? > > I would vote for yes, because these default limits are huge anyway > (The 50% reduction done in > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=b66e91ccbc34ebd5a2f90f9e1bc1597e2924a500 > only impacted TCP ) Thank you for jumping on this so early! I'm sorry for the udplite left over: my fault. I agree with sharing the limits between UDP and UDPlite. I think that the current ones are so high we can apply also a similar reduction to UDP (and SCTP, too) Cheers, Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists