On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 05:32:10PM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote: > David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@xxxxxxxxx> > > Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 11:57:31 -0500 > > > >> I am against using rhashtable in SCTP (or TCP) at this stage, given the > >> number of bugs we have with it. > > > > Come on Eric, we've largely dealt with all of these problems. I haven't > > seen a serious report in a while. > > Well there is still the outstanding issue with softirq insertion > potentially failing with ENOMEM if we fail to expand the hash > table using just kmalloc. > > So if the target user does softirq insertions, I would wait until > the fix for that is ready. It does some, yes. If listening socket is not backlogged, there will be N inserts at each new association, where N is the number of IP addresses that the client is advertising. This is done on the second stage of the SCTP handshake. Not easily DoS-able as it requires receiving a packet from server and replying based on it, plus N is limited by MTU. AFAIK Xin's stress tests couldn't hit this situation of ENOMEM, btw. Thanks, Marcelo -- 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
