On Sun, Jan 05, 2014 at 11:14:04PM +0100, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > On Sun, Jan 05, 2014 at 09:51:02PM +0000, Patrick McHardy wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 05, 2014 at 10:18:47PM +0100, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > > > This patch adds a limit to the maximum number of elements that > > > belong to a set. It also adds a new field to count the current > > > number of elements, so in case that limit is reached, we hit > > > -ENOSPC. > > > > > > This patch also adds two new attributes: NFTA_SET_MAXELEMS to > > > set and to indicate the current limit and NFTA_SET_NUMELEMS > > > to export the current number of set elements. > > > > This affects the API, I'm really opposed to make any temporary > > fixes, but any temporary fix affecting the API is a complete > > no go IMO. > > We need to limit elements in a set. I think it's not good that you can > add an unlimited number of sets, right? > > This patch is independent of 1/3, which can be discarded. But 3/3 > relies on it. In that case we should add rehashing. But adding arbitrary limits and even encoding them in the API is wrong on so many levels. We really need to abstract this stuff. Constant sets can't grow. If we're using a hash that's not constant, we can easily either make a resizeable hash or add a second implementation that's resizable and improve selection. But the point is, this should be (apart from being constant) transparent to userspace. The kernel is to provide the implementation, not the policy. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
