Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > In order to prevent breaking userspace, perhaps make it so that the > > kernel caps cfg.max at twice that value? Would allow storing up to > > 16777216 addresses with an average chain depth of 16 (which is quite > > large). We could increase the max limit in case someone presents a use > > case. > > > > Not sure if I understand this, I don't see how cap'ing cfg->max could > help prevent breaking user-space? Are you suggesting to cap it with > HASHLIMIT_MAX_SIZE too? Something like below? > > + if (cfg->max > 2 * HASHLIMIT_MAX_SIZE) > + cfg->max = 2 * HASHLIMIT_MAX_SIZE; > Yes, thats what I meant, cap the user-provided value to something thats going to be less of a problem. But now that I read it, the "2 *" part looks really silly, so I suggst to go with " > FOO_MAX", else its not a maximum value after all.
