lists.openwall.net   lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  linux-cve-announce  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Mon, 05 Feb 2007 19:11:09 -0500
From:	John Heffner <jheffner@....edu>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] apply cwnd rules to FIN packets with data

David Miller wrote:
>> However, I can't think of any reason why the cwnd test should not 
>> apply.
> 
> Care to elaborate here?  You can view the FIN special case as an off
> by one error in the CWND test, it's not going to melt the internet.
> :-)

True, it's not going to melt the internet, but why stop at one when two 
would finish the connection even faster?  Not sure I buy this argument. 
  Was there some benchmarking data that was a justification for this in 
the first place?

My first patch was broken anyway (should not have pulled the test from 
tso_should_defer), and the change is not needed to the nagle test since 
it's implicit.  This patch just restores the old behavior from before 
TSO, sending the FIN when it's the last true segment.  We can debate the 
merits of applying congestion control to the FIN separately. :)

   -John

View attachment "fin_cwnd1.patch" of type "text/plain" (964 bytes)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists