netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2 0/2] net: bridge: multicast: per-port EHT hosts limit

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: <20210128105201.7c6bed82@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date:   Thu, 28 Jan 2021 10:52:01 -0800
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@...dia.com>
Cc:     Nikolay Aleksandrov <razor@...ckwall.org>,
        <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <roopa@...dia.com>,
        <bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org>, <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 0/2] net: bridge: multicast: per-port EHT
 hosts limit

On Thu, 28 Jan 2021 11:12:26 +0200 Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote:
> On 28/01/2021 03:42, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Tue, 26 Jan 2021 11:35:31 +0200 Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote:  
> >> From: Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@...dia.com>
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >> This set adds a simple configurable per-port EHT tracked hosts limit.
> >> Patch 01 adds a default limit of 512 tracked hosts per-port, since the EHT
> >> changes are still only in net-next that shouldn't be a problem. Then
> >> patch 02 adds the ability to configure and retrieve the hosts limit
> >> and to retrieve the current number of tracked hosts per port.
> >> Let's be on the safe side and limit the number of tracked hosts by
> >> default while allowing the user to increase that limit if needed.  
> > 
> > Applied, thanks!
> > 
> > I'm curious that you add those per-port sysfs files, is this a matter
> > of policy for the bridge? Seems a bit like a waste of memory at this
> > point.
> 
> Indeed, that's how historically new port and bridge options are added.
> They're all exposed via sysfs. I wonder if we should just draw the line
> and continue with netlink-only attributes. Perhaps we should add a comment
> about it for anyone adding new ones.
> 
> Since this is in net-next I can send a follow up to drop the sysfs part
> and another to add that comment.
> 
> WDYT?

SGTM!