From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Graf Subject: Re: rhashtable: Add cap on number of elements in hash table Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2015 09:15:39 +0100 Message-ID: <20150424081539.GN21799@casper.infradead.org> References: <1429799923-28122-1-git-send-email-johannes@sipsolutions.net> <20150423.115919.1353583175267783165.davem@davemloft.net> <20150424005729.GA27075@gondor.apana.org.au> <20150424080608.GM21799@casper.infradead.org> <20150424081224.GA29599@gondor.apana.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: David Miller , johannes@sipsolutions.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org, kaber@trash.net, johannes.berg@intel.com To: Herbert Xu Return-path: Received: from casper.infradead.org ([85.118.1.10]:44172 "EHLO casper.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754915AbbDXIPk (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Apr 2015 04:15:40 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150424081224.GA29599@gondor.apana.org.au> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 04/24/15 at 04:12pm, Herbert Xu wrote: > On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 09:06:08AM +0100, Thomas Graf wrote: > > > > Which users are you talking about? Both Netlink and TIPC still > > have an upper limit. nft sets are controlled by privileged users. > > There is no limit in netlink apart from UINT_MAX AFAICS. Allowing > UINT_MAX entries into a hash table limited to 64K is not a good > thing. OK, so you are saying that the Netlink limit is too low? Then let's fix that. You are claiming that the rhashtable convertion removed a cap. I'm not seeing such a change. Can you point me to where netlink_insert() enforced a cap pre-rhashtable?