netdev - IPv4: Why are sysctl settings of abandoned route cache / GC still around?

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sat, 27 Jun 2020 14:33:30 +0200
From:   Oliver Herms <oliver.peter.herms@...il.com>
To:     netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: IPv4: Why are sysctl settings of abandoned route cache / GC still
 around?

Hi list,

is there a reason sysctl settings like net/ipv4/route/
- max_size
- gc_thresh
- gc_min_interval
- gc_min_interval_ms
- gc_elasticity
are still around in current kernels? 

I find this just confusing and misleading.
If there are no concerns I'd like to remove those. I have a patch ready.

Kind Regards
Oliver