netdev - Re: [PATCH V6] netfilter: netns nf_conntrack: per-netns net.netfilter.nf_conntrack

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: <20250523092129.98856-1-xiafei_xupt@163.com>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2025 17:21:29 +0800
From: lvxiafei <xiafei_xupt@....com>
To: pablo@...filter.org
Cc: coreteam@...filter.org,
	davem@...emloft.net,
	edumazet@...gle.com,
	fw@...len.de,
	horms@...nel.org,
	kadlec@...filter.org,
	kuba@...nel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	lvxiafei@...setime.com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org,
	pabeni@...hat.com,
	xiafei_xupt@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V6] netfilter: netns nf_conntrack: per-netns net.netfilter.nf_conntrack_max sysctl

On Thu, 22 May 2025 21:58:13 +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:

> > Wether its time to disallow 0 is a different topic and not related to this patch.
> >
> > I would argue: "yes", disallow 0 -- users can still set INT_MAX if they
> >  want and that should provide enough rope to strangle yourself.

> The question is how to make it without breaking crazy people.

It seems that we need a new topic to discuss the maximum value that the system can
tolerate to ensure safety:

1. This value is a system limitation, not a user setting

2. This value should be calculated based on system resources

3. This value takes precedence over 0 and other larger values that the user sets

4. This value does not affect the value of the user setting, and 0 in the user
setting can still indicate that the user setting is unlimited, maintaining
compatibility with historical usage.