Re: [PATCH] fix mem-leak in netfilter

* Patrick McHardy ([email protected]) wrote:
> David S. Miller wrote:
> > Is there any reasonable reason to allow ip_pkt_list_tot to ever be
> > larger than say 255?  If we can accept that limit, we can shrink
> > the recent_entry considerably by packing the index and nstamps
> > into a single word next to ttl.
> 
> My primary goal was full compatibility, I have no idea about real-life
> usage though. Maybe Stephen can answer this.

I don't recall ever seeing > 255 usage.  It's been pretty rare for it to
be changed from the default at all from what I've seen.  Making the
limit be 255 seems perfectly reasonable to me.

	Thanks,

		Stephen

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

---

• References:
  • Re: [PATCH] fix mem-leak in netfilter
    • From: Stephen Frost <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] fix mem-leak in netfilter
    • From: Stephen Frost <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] fix mem-leak in netfilter
    • From: Patrick McHardy <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] fix mem-leak in netfilter
    • From: "David S. Miller" <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] fix mem-leak in netfilter
    • From: Patrick McHardy <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [RFC PATCH 01/09] robust VM per_cpu core
• Next by Date: RE: ASUS A8V Deluxe, x86_64
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] fix mem-leak in netfilter
• Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] fix mem-leak in netfilter
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]