[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [RFC/PATCH] "strict" ipv4 reassembly

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20050517232556.GA26846@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <m11x85762p.fsf@xxxxxx> <20050518000955.GA27212@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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. :-)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>