netdev - Re: 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-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20200627.180828.233747922813040718.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:   Sat, 27 Jun 2020 18:08:28 -0700 (PDT)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     oliver.peter.herms@...il.com
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: IPv4: Why are sysctl settings of abandoned route cache / GC
 still around?

From: Oliver Herms <oliver.peter.herms@...il.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2020 14:33:30 +0200

> 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? 

Because otherwise scripts would break.

Sysctl is a user facing API.