Thread (20 messages) flat view 20 messages, 4 authors, 2017-03-29

Re: [PATCH net-next 0/4] net: mpls: Allow users to configure more labels per route

From: David Ahern <hidden>
Date: 2017-03-29 21:20:10

On 3/27/17 9:08 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
I believe we should just kill MAX_NEW_LABELS.

I think the only significant change from your patch is the removal of an
array from mpls_route_config.

With the removal of MAX_NEW_LABELS I would replace it by a sanity check
in mpls_rt_alloc that verifies that the amount we are going to allocate
for struct mpls_route is < PAGE_SIZE.  Anything larger is just
asking for trouble.

That should put our practical limit just a little bit below 32 nexthops
adding 32 labels each.
The 4096 limit works nice for mpls_route but not for lwt encap info.
That struct is 4-bytes + the labels. Seems odd to let ip->mpls allow up
to 255 labels (max for u8) while mpls->mpls has a limit.

I'm going to send v2 soon with the 4096 limit for mpls_route total size
but keeping the MAX_NEW_LABELS with a count of 30 for both. That keeps
the two paths consistent, keeps mpls_iptunnel_encap < 128 bytes for the
max allocation and 30 labels is allows plenty of options for TE and SR.
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help