From owner-freebsd-current Tue Sep 28 5:29:23 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from ns.oeno.com (ns.oeno.com [194.100.99.145]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id BD64015155 for ; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 05:29:19 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from will@ns.oeno.com) Received: (qmail 16940 invoked by uid 1001); 28 Sep 1999 12:29:17 -0000 Date: 28 Sep 1999 12:29:17 -0000 Message-ID: <19990928122917.16937.qmail@ns.oeno.com> From: Ville-Pertti Keinonen To: phk@critter.freebsd.dk Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG, culverk@culverk.student.umd.edu In-reply-to: <25751.938520138@critter.freebsd.dk> (message from Poul-Henning Kamp on Tue, 28 Sep 1999 14:02:18 +0200) Subject: Re: just found this Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > I have been mulling over this issue for some time. My current thinking > is that pending some more well thought out mechanism, the right thing > to do here is to detect the DOS and react to that, not to handicap > the caching in general. > > The easiest way to detect this DOS is probably to keep track of the > > namecache entries > ----------------- > live vnodes > > ratio, and enforce an upper limit on it. That seems like a reasonable approach. If you want to include the other attack I mentioned (I just tried it, got up to > 160000 vnodes), then you have to exclude vnodes that are only live because of v_cache_src entries from the count. BTW: You still haven't committed the v_id patch I sent you in May. Is there any specific reason for this? To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message