From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Robin Holt Subject: Re: [Patch] Limit sysctl_tcp_mem and sysctl_udp_mem initializers to prevent integer overflows. Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 13:34:17 -0500 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-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE 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 To: Eric Dumazet Return-path: 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 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1287424348.2359.1.camel@edumazet-laptop> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 07:52:28PM +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote: > Le lundi 18 octobre 2010 =E0 12:43 -0500, Robin Holt a =E9crit : > > 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 > > >=20 > > > > Subject: [Patch] Limit sysctl_tcp_mem and sysctl_udp_mem initia= lizers to prevent integer overflows. > > > >=20 > > > > 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 t= hey are > > > > maximized without overflowing. > > > >=20 > > > > Signed-off-by: Robin Holt > > >=20 > > > Robin please resubmit this with the SCTP bits included. > >=20 > > David, > >=20 > > I did not mean to blow you off. I was not going to resubmit becaus= e > > Eric's patch is the preferred direction. I had been given an indic= ation > > that my patch was preferred, but that indicator changed. > >=20 >=20 > Maybe there is some misunderstanding. >=20 > My patch was for net-next kernels (not before 2.6.37), while yours wa= s > applicable to previous kernels. Ah. I will resubmit then. Sorry for the confusion, Robin