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  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]
Date:   Fri, 8 May 2020 08:13:11 -0700
From:   Eric Dumazet <>
To:     David Ahern <>
Cc:     Eric Dumazet <>,
        "David S . Miller" <>,
        netdev <>, Martin KaFai Lau <>,
        David Ahern <>, Wei Wang <>,
        Maciej ┼╗enczykowski <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] ipv6: use DST_NOCOUNT in ip6_rt_pcpu_alloc()

On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 8:04 AM David Ahern <> wrote:
> On 5/8/20 8:43 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > This patch can be backported without any pains ;)
> sure, but you tagged it as net-next, not net.

Because it is not a recent regression.
We are late in rc cycle.

I tend to push patches on net-next, then ask later for stable
backports once we are sure no regression was added,
even for patches that look 'very safe'  ;)

> >
> > Getting rid of limits, even for exceptions ?
> Running through where dst entries are created in IPv6:
> 1. pcpu cache
> 2. uncached_list
> 3. exceptions like pmtu and redirect
> All of those match IPv4 and as I recall IPv4 does not have any limits,
> even on exceptions and redirect. If IPv4 does not have limits, why
> should IPv6? And if the argument is uncontrolled memory consumption, is
> there an expectation that IPv6 generates more exceptions?
> My argument really just boils down to consistency between them. IPv4
> does not use DST_NOCOUNT, so why put that burden on v6?

That is something that needs further investigation.
Too many fires at this moment on my plate.

My patch stops bleeding right now.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists