Hi Nikolay, On Thu, Jul 07, 2022 at 05:08:15PM +0300, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote: > On 07/07/2022 00:01, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote: > > On 06/07/2022 23:21, Vladimir Oltean wrote: > >> On Wed, Jul 06, 2022 at 10:38:04PM +0300, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote: > [snip] > > I already said it's ok to add hard configurable limits if they're done properly performance-wise. > > Any distribution can choose to set some default limits after the option exists. > > > > Just fyi, and to avoid duplicate efforts, I already have patches for global and per-port software > fdb limits that I'll polish and submit soon (depending on time availability, of course). If I find > more time I might add per-vlan limits as well to the set. They use embedded netlink attributes > to config and dump, so we can easily extend them later (e.g. different action on limit hit, limit > statistics etc). So again, to repeat myself, it's nice to have limits on FDB size, but those won't fix the software bridges that are now out in the open and can't have their configuration scripts changed. I haven't had the time to expand on this in a proper change yet, but I was thinking more along the lines of adding an OOM handler with register_oom_notifier() in br_fdb_init(), and on OOM, do something, like flush the FDB from all bridges. There are going to be complications, it will schedule switchdev, switchdev is going to allocate memory which we're low on, the workqueues aren't created with WQ_MEM_RECLAIM, so this isn't necessarily going to be a silver bullet either. But this is what concerns me the most, the unconfigured bridge killing the kernel so easily. As you can see, with an OOM handler I'm not so much trying to impose a fixed limit on FDB size, but do something sensible such that the bridge doesn't contribute to the kernel dying.
