On Wednesday 08/12 at 10:46 -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-08-12 at 20:00 +0300, Sorin Dumitru wrote:
>
> > Would clamping the values to a min value, like setsockopt(SO_SNDBUF)
> > does, be an option?
> > I still find it odd that SO_SNDBUF limits you, while the /proc
> > interface doesn't. If you think it's
> > too much, I'm ok with reverting it since it affects scripts.
> >
> > On those arches where PAGE_SIZE == 64K(or > 16K) it looks like we have
> > tcp_wmem[1]
> > smaller than tcp_wmem[0]. Shouldn't we do something about this?
>
> As long as we do not crash if/when root user changes /proc/sys/net
> settings, we are good.
Using "1 1 1" for tcp_{r,w}mem seems not to explode, so this sounds good
to me. I'll send a new patch reverting the original.
Thanks,
Calvin
> I would not care if performance is bad if root does something really
> stupid. root user is supposed to not mess things just for fun.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
