Vasily Averin wrote:
> No, I've not investigated this scenario. It looks like you are right and my
> patch can leads to a long delays.
>
> In my experiments I've decreased ip_conntrack_max lower than number of hash
> buckets and got the "table full, dropping packet" errors in logs. I've looked on
> the conntrack list and found a huge number of conntracks that can be freed.
> However my hash bucket was empty and therefore I even did not have any chances
> to free something. That's why I would like to check the other hash buckets too.
>
> Ok, let's limit the number of conntracks that can be checked inside
> early_drop(). What do you prefer: some round number (for example 100) or
> fraction of ip_conntrack_max (for example 1%)?
A (small) fraction sounds better. We could even consider keeping track
of the number of conntracks that can be evicted (not assured), so in a
DOS situation we could save unnecessary table scans. Not sure if its
worth the effort though.
Anyway, please base your patch on the net-2.6.22 tree, which doesn't
include ip_conntrack anymore.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[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]
