[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220901150115.GB31767@debian>
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2022 17:01:18 +0200
From: Richard Gobert <richardbgobert@...il.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>,
Alexander Aring <alex.aring@...il.com>,
Stefan Schmidt <stefan@...enfreihafen.org>,
Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>,
Jozsef Kadlecsik <kadlec@...filter.org>,
Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>,
Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-wpan@...r.kernel.org,
netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, coreteam@...filter.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] net-next: frags: add inetpeer frag_mem tracking
On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 03:15:47PM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> We tried to get rid of any dependence over inetpeer, which is not
> resistant against DDOS attacks.
>
> So I would not add a new dependency.
I see your point. What do you suggest doing differently?
The inetpeer mechanism is used for IPv4 frags. If it isn't resistant
against DDoS attacks, can it perhaps be improved?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists