| To: | herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [RFC/PATCH] "strict" ipv4 reassembly |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 17 May 2005 17:52:10 -0700 (PDT) |
| Cc: | ak@xxxxxx, dlstevens@xxxxxxxxxx, rick.jones2@xxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20050518000955.GA27212@gondor.apana.org.au> |
| References: | <20050517232556.GA26846@gondor.apana.org.au> <m11x85762p.fsf@muc.de> <20050518000955.GA27212@gondor.apana.org.au> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
From: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] "strict" ipv4 reassembly Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 10:09:55 +1000 > On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 02:04:14AM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > > Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > It will, you just need enough other hosts to thrash inetpeer. How many > > you need depends on your available memory. > > Even when the cache entry is deleted, Linux will allocate an ID randomly > so the chance of what was stated above occuring is very small. Yes, that's right. Andi just doesn't like inetpeer, so let's just move along and accept that. :-) |
| Previous by Date: | Re: [RFC/PATCH] "strict" ipv4 reassembly, David S. Miller |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [RFC/PATCH] "strict" ipv4 reassembly, Andi Kleen |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [RFC/PATCH] "strict" ipv4 reassembly, Herbert Xu |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [RFC/PATCH] "strict" ipv4 reassembly, Nivedita Singhvi |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |