Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 18:19:41 +0100 > Patrick McHardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>diff --git a/net/ipv4/netfilter/arp_tables.c >>>b/net/ipv4/netfilter/arp_tables.c >>>index 2909c92..ed3bd0b 100644 >>>--- a/net/ipv4/netfilter/arp_tables.c >>>+++ b/net/ipv4/netfilter/arp_tables.c >>>@@ -811,7 +811,7 @@ static int do_replace(void __user *user, unsigned int >>>len) >>> return -ENOPROTOOPT; >>> >>> /* overflow check */ >>>- if (tmp.size >= (INT_MAX - sizeof(struct xt_table_info)) / NR_CPUS - >>>+ if (tmp.size >= (INT_MAX - XT_TABLE_INFO_SZ) / NR_CPUS - >>> SMP_CACHE_BYTES) >> >> >>Shouldn't NR_CPUs be replaced by nr_cpu_ids here? I'm wondering >>why we still include NR_CPUs in the calculation at all though, >>unlike in 2.4, we don't allocate one huge area of memory anymore >>but do one allocation per CPU. IIRC it even was you who changed >>that. > > > Yes, doing an allocation per possible cpu was better than one giant > allocation (memory savings and NUMA aware) > > Well, technically speaking you are right, we may also replace these > divides per NR_CPUS by nr_cpu_ids (or even better : num_possible_cpus()) > > Because with NR_CPUS=4096, we actually limit tmp.size to about 524000, > what a shame ! :)
We actually had complaints about number of rule limitations, but that was more likely caused by vmalloc limits :) But of course we do need to include the number of CPUs in the check, I misread the code. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
