From: Calvin Owens
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 20:34:06 -0700
> I'm really questioning the limitation itself: why enforce a minimum of
> SOCK_MIN_SNDBUF here? Why not SK_MEM_QUANTUM?
>
> Commit 8133534c760d4083 referred to b1cb59cf2efe7971, which choose to
> use the SOCK_MIN constants as the lower li
On Sunday 08/09 at 22:41 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: Calvin Owens
> Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 13:26:54 -0700
>
> > Commit 8133534c760d4083 ("net: limit tcp/udp rmem/wmem to
> > SOCK_{RCV,SND}BUF_MIN") modified four sysctls to enforce that the values
> > written to them are not less than SOCK_M
From: Calvin Owens
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 13:26:54 -0700
> Commit 8133534c760d4083 ("net: limit tcp/udp rmem/wmem to
> SOCK_{RCV,SND}BUF_MIN") modified four sysctls to enforce that the values
> written to them are not less than SOCK_MIN_{RCV,SND}BUF.
>
> This change is fine for tcp_rmem and udp_r
Commit 8133534c760d4083 ("net: limit tcp/udp rmem/wmem to
SOCK_{RCV,SND}BUF_MIN") modified four sysctls to enforce that the values
written to them are not less than SOCK_MIN_{RCV,SND}BUF.
This change is fine for tcp_rmem and udp_rmem_min, since SOCK_MIN_RCVBUF
is equal to equal to TCP_SKB_MIN_TRUE
