Re: [PATCH 1/8] isdn/gigaset: ratelimit CAPI message dumps
From: Karsten Keil <hidden>
Date: 2012-04-28 09:33:29
Also in:
lkml
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Am 27.04.2012 12:29, schrieb Tilman Schmidt:
Am 26.04.2012 08:39, schrieb Karsten Keil:quoted
Am 26.04.2012 01:02, schrieb Tilman Schmidt:quoted
Introduce a global ratelimit for CAPI message dumps to protect against possible log flood. Drop the ratelimit for ignored messages which is now covered by the global one.Hmm, I think the only CAPI messages which would need a ratelimit are related to the DATA_B3 messages. If you need CAPI debug messages in most cases you do not need all of the DATA_B3, but you do not want to miss any other message related to the call control. With a general rate limit you do not have the control, which messages are logged and which are not.The ratelimit introduced by this patch only applies to messages other than DATA_B3. Logging DATA_B3 messages is not done via dump_cmsg().
Thanks for the clarification, forget about my objection. I ack this patch now.
I'd like to ratelimit specifically non-DATA_B3 messages because I saw a (possibly buggy) CAPI application flooding the log with FACILITY messages. Equally important, I'd like to make the ratelimit in do_nothing() / do_unsupported() bursty because I had a case where I needed to see several ignored/unhandled CAPI messages in quick succession. So this patch is killing two birds with one stone for me. The burst limit of 20 messages in 20 seconds is chosen to allow a complete call setup sequence to be logged, while limiting to one message per second in the long run.quoted
And here maybe some cases, when even the DATA_B3 are important (e.g. searching bugs in flow control), so I would make it still conditional to allow to print all messages.DATA_B3 dumps produce an enormous amount of log data and are therefore controlled separately by the DEBUG_MCMD flag. Someone who enables that should know what she or he does. But if you need them, you need them all. A ratelimit doesn't make sense there in my experience.quoted
And I'm not sure, if this is really something for stable.It's pretty simple and localized, a net simplification, and only affects generation of debugging messages, so I think it's safe. But if you see a problem there I can drop the "CC: stable" line.
I let the decision about it to you and the stable maintainers. - -- Karsten Keil Linux Kernel Development Tel: +49 175 7249132 Mail: keil@b1-systems.de B1 Systems GmbH Osterfeldstraße 7 / 85088 Vohburg / http://www.b1-systems.de GF: Ralph Dehner / Unternehmenssitz: Vohburg / AG: Ingolstadt,HRB 3537 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk+buHwACgkQo5VVC52CNcRoygCfWwPlWZ+A48OwEkr/MtK6PeNG 0UEAnipdxPSZDKa4s99LlGYwvggWIIAJ =CLr6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----