Subject: Re: [PATCH][XFRM] export SAD info

From: jamal <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 09:10:10 -0400

On Thu, 2007-26-04 at 00:18 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: jamal <[email-masked]>

> > Would it make sense to have those vars as u32 instead of unsigned int?
> 
> I'm ambivalent, "unsigned int" happens to be 32-bit on every platform.
> So changing it would cause no harm :-)

If unsigned int is always u32 i will leave it as is.

I would have liked to just do a read_lock_bh when retrieving the table
metadata; however, the state table lock is defined as DEFINE_SPINLOCK
unlike the policy table which is defined as DEFINE_RWLOCK.
Any objection to change the state lock to be RW?

BTW, if i can get the SADinfo, then i should be able to set it from user
space too;->
So that would be my next change unless there is objection.

One other angle is start rejecting additions to the table after some
point. To test, I wrote a little DOS tool that just kept adding entries
until an OOM hit. It is a lot of fun to watch when you hit a point that
swap is guzzling 2G or more. The add latency starts going up
exponentially.
I would like to enable the admin to set the proper param settings for
upper bound. Exceeding the upper bounds of the max entries a table
should have returns ENOMEM for any new entries. By default current
behavior is maintained.

Thoughts?

cheers,
jamal