netdev - RE: [patch iproute2 v6 0/3] tc: Add -bs option to batch mode

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: <VI1PR0501MB2143A976D00D1186AED8101FAB100@VI1PR0501MB2143.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Tue, 9 Jan 2018 01:49:12 +0000
From:   Chris Mi <chrism@...lanox.com>
To:     Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
CC:     David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>, Phil Sutter <phil@....cc>,
        "marcelo.leitner@...il.com" <marcelo.leitner@...il.com>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "gerlitz.or@...il.com" <gerlitz.or@...il.com>
Subject: RE: [patch iproute2 v6 0/3] tc: Add -bs option to batch mode

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Hemminger [mailto:stephen@...workplumber.org]
> Sent: Monday, January 8, 2018 11:40 PM
> To: Chris Mi <chrism@...lanox.com>
> Cc: David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>; Phil Sutter <phil@....cc>;
> marcelo.leitner@...il.com; netdev@...r.kernel.org; gerlitz.or@...il.com
> Subject: Re: [patch iproute2 v6 0/3] tc: Add -bs option to batch mode
> 
> On Mon, 8 Jan 2018 08:00:00 +0000
> Chris Mi <chrism@...lanox.com> wrote:
> 
> > > >> I wonder whether specifying the batch size is necessary at all.
> > > >> Couldn't batch mode just collect messages until either EOF or an
> > > >> incompatible command is encountered which then triggers a commit
> > > >> to kernel? This might simplify code quite a bit.
> > > > That's a good suggestion.
> > >
> > > Thanks for your time on this, Chris.
> > After testing, I find that the message passed to kernel should not be too
> big.
> > If it is bigger than about 64K, sendmsg returns -1, errno is 90 (EMSGSIZE).
> > That is about 400 commands.  So how about set batch size to 128 which is
> big enough?
> 
> 
> Use sendmmsg?
Maybe we can try that, but there is also a limit on it.