[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220911115447.GA101734@debian>
Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2022 13:54:52 +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 Thu, Sep 01, 2022 at 09:06:59AM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> It can be disabled if needed, by changing ipfrag_max_dist sysctl.
I understand your reluctance to add another dependency on inetpeer.
> Quite frankly IPv4 reassembly unit is a toy, I am always surprised
> some applications are still relying on IP fragments.
Do you think there's any room for improvement in IP fragments? I
believe that it is possible to make frags less fragile and prone
to overload in real-world scenarios.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists