From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matt Mackall Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/3] TCP/IP Critical socket communication mechanism Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 21:48:01 -0800 Message-ID: <20051215054800.GU8637@waste.org> References: <20051215033937.GC11856@waste.org> <20051214.203023.129054759.davem@davemloft.net> <20051215050250.GT8637@waste.org> <20051214.212309.127095596.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: sri@us.ibm.com, ak@suse.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org Return-path: To: "David S. Miller" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20051214.212309.127095596.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 09:23:09PM -0800, David S. Miller wrote: > From: Matt Mackall > Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 21:02:50 -0800 > > > There needs to be two rules: > > > > iff global memory critical flag is set > > - allocate from the global critical receive pool on receive > > - return packet to global pool if not destined for a socket with an > > attached send mempool > > This shuts off a router and/or firewall just because iSCSI or NFS peed > in it's pants. Not really acceptable. That'll happen now anyway. > > I think this will provide the desired behavior > > It's not desirable. > > What if iSCSI is protected by IPSEC, and the key management daemon has > to process a security assosciation expiration and negotiate a new one > in order for iSCSI to further communicate with it's peer when this > memory shortage occurs? It needs to send packets back and forth with > the remove key management daemon in order to do this, but since you > cut it off with this critical receive pool, the negotiation will never > succeed. Ok, encapsulation completely ruins the idea. -- Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.