On Wed, Aug 05, 2015 at 08:59:07PM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > > Here's a theory and patch below. Herbert, Thomas, does this make any > sense to you resp. sound plausible? ;)
It's certainly possible. Whether it's plausible I'm not so sure. The netlink hashtable is unlimited in size. So it should always be expanding, not rehashing. The bug you found should only affect rehashing. > I'm not quite sure what's best to return from here, i.e. whether we > propagate -ENOMEM or instead retry over and over again hoping that the > rehashing completed (and no new rehashing started in the mean time) ... Please use something other than ENOMEM as it is already heavily used in this context. Perhaps EOVERFLOW? We should probably add a WARN_ON_ONCE in rhashtable_insert_rehash since two concurrent rehashings indicates something is going seriously wrong. Thanks, -- Email: Herbert Xu <herb...@gondor.apana.org.au> Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/ PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
