From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933085Ab0JRSeU (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Oct 2010 14:34:20 -0400 Received: from relay2.sgi.com ([192.48.179.30]:53649 "EHLO relay.sgi.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755239Ab0JRSeT (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Oct 2010 14:34:19 -0400 Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 13:34:17 -0500 From: Robin Holt To: Eric Dumazet Cc: Robin Holt , David Miller , w@1wt.eu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru, pekkas@netcore.fi, jmorris@namei.org, yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org, kaber@trash.net Subject: Re: [Patch] Limit sysctl_tcp_mem and sysctl_udp_mem initializers to prevent integer overflows. Message-ID: <20101018183417.GH14064@sgi.com> References: <20101002112405.951704198@gulag1.americas.sgi.com> <20101002112419.248437367@gulag1.americas.sgi.com> <20101005.145032.25126909.davem@davemloft.net> <20101018174339.GC14068@sgi.com> <1287424348.2359.1.camel@edumazet-laptop> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <1287424348.2359.1.camel@edumazet-laptop> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 07:52:28PM +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote: > Le lundi 18 octobre 2010 à 12:43 -0500, Robin Holt a écrit : > > On Tue, Oct 05, 2010 at 02:50:32PM -0700, David Miller wrote: > > > From: Robin Holt > > > Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2010 06:24:06 -0500 > > > > > > > Subject: [Patch] Limit sysctl_tcp_mem and sysctl_udp_mem initializers to prevent integer overflows. > > > > > > > > On a 16TB x86_64 machine, sysctl_tcp_mem[2], sysctl_udp_mem[2], and > > > > sysctl_sctp_mem[2] can integer overflow. Set limit such that they are > > > > maximized without overflowing. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Robin Holt > > > > > > Robin please resubmit this with the SCTP bits included. > > > > David, > > > > I did not mean to blow you off. I was not going to resubmit because > > Eric's patch is the preferred direction. I had been given an indication > > that my patch was preferred, but that indicator changed. > > > > Maybe there is some misunderstanding. > > My patch was for net-next kernels (not before 2.6.37), while yours was > applicable to previous kernels. Ah. I will resubmit then. Sorry for the confusion, Robin