From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Dumazet Subject: Re: Unix Socket buffer attribution Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 09:13:05 -0800 Message-ID: <1358961185.12374.853.camel@edumazet-glaptop> References: <1358951180.12374.787.camel@edumazet-glaptop> <1358960188.12374.830.camel@edumazet-glaptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Cong Wang , netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Yannick Koehler Return-path: Received: from mail-pa0-f43.google.com ([209.85.220.43]:41656 "EHLO mail-pa0-f43.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752976Ab3AWRNI (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Jan 2013 12:13:08 -0500 Received: by mail-pa0-f43.google.com with SMTP id fb10so4895810pad.16 for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2013 09:13:08 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <1358960188.12374.830.camel@edumazet-glaptop> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, 2013-01-23 at 08:56 -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote: > You'll have to add proper limits (SO_RCVBUF), accounting the truesize of > all accumulated messages. And if you claim being able to remove DOS attacks, you'll also have to add global limits, at a very minimum. (a la /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_mem or /proc/sys/net/ipv4/udp_mem) Its not an easy problem, unfortunately.