Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 00:31:35 -0400 (EDT) From: Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> To: Darren Reed <avalon@coombs.anu.edu.au> Cc: freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: socket buffer limits (was: Re: FW: Local DoS in FreeBSD) Message-ID: <199909020431.AAA08736@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> In-Reply-To: <199909020347.NAA23859@cheops.anu.edu.au> References: <199909020335.XAA08433@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> <199909020347.NAA23859@cheops.anu.edu.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
<<On Thu, 2 Sep 1999 13:47:10 +1000 (EST), Darren Reed <avalon@coombs.anu.edu.au> said: > How about failing setsockopt's when they try to increase buffer space > if it would mean buffer space commitments would exceed a high water mark ? That's no different from what I dismissed in my reply to Don. We don't want to restrict the potential TCP window a user may offer, just how much actual kernel memory he may tie up at once. > Also, what if mbufs are dropped and/or send/write fails (ENOBUFS) if there > is nobody waiting to receive data and a high water mark has been reached ? POLA violation for sure. (TCP should be rewritten, however, to use the receiver's advertised window for user push-back, but that's at least a full-time person-year's worth of work to write, test, and tune. That would mean that loopback connections could only use one window's-worth of kernel memory for buffering.) -GAWollman -- Garrett A. Wollman | O Siem / We are all family / O Siem / We're all the same wollman@lcs.mit.edu | O Siem / The fires of freedom Opinions not those of| Dance in the burning flame MIT, LCS, CRS, or NSA| - Susan Aglukark and Chad Irschick To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199909020431.AAA08736>