On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 11:23:14 -0500 Vlad Yasevich <vladislav.yasevich@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Overall, it would be way simpler and saner to clamp this value to some > > explicit time period, IMO. > > > > <pulls number out of thin air> > > > > --- a/net/sctp/socket.c~a > > +++ a/net/sctp/socket.c > > @@ -2086,9 +2086,8 @@ static int sctp_setsockopt_autoclose(str > > return -EINVAL; > > if (copy_from_user(&sp->autoclose, optval, optlen)) > > return -EFAULT; > > - /* make sure it won't exceed MAX_SCHEDULE_TIMEOUT */ > > - if (sp->autoclose > (MAX_SCHEDULE_TIMEOUT / HZ) ) > > - sp->autoclose = MAX_SCHEDULE_TIMEOUT / HZ ; > > + /* make sure it won't exceed one hour */ > > + sp->autoclose = min_t(u32, sp->autoclose, 60 * 60); > > > > But that may not be long enough. The spec doesn't impose limits > and it's really up to the application to decide how long it wants > to keep idle connections open. Thus any limits shorter the maximum > supported by kernel are really artificial and may not be sufficient. Could make ->autoclose a u64? That fixes any 32bit-vs-64bit inconsistencies and allows for an effectively infinite period. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sctp" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
