Eric Dumazet wrote: > Le mardi 13 avril 2010 à 17:36 +0200, Jan Kiszka a écrit : >> Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >>> The following situation was observed in the field: >>> tap1 sends packets, tap2 does not consume them, as a result >>> tap1 can not be closed. >> And before that, tap1 may not be able to send further packets to anyone >> else on the bridge as its TX resources were blocked by tap2 - that's >> what we saw in the field. >> > > After the patch, tap1 is able to flood tap2, and tap3/tap4 not able to > send one single frame. Is it OK ?
I think if that's a real issue, you have to apply traffic shaping to the untrusted nodes. The existing flow-control scheme was fragile anyway as you had to translate packet lengths on TX side to packet counts on RX. Jan -- Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT T DE IT 1 Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux
