netdev - Re: TCP's initial cwnd setting correct?...

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 8 Aug 2007 16:05:09 +0300 (EEST)
From:	"Ilpo Järvinen" <ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
cc:	Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: TCP's initial cwnd setting correct?...

On Tue, 7 Aug 2007, David Miller wrote:

> From: "Ilpo_Järvinen" <ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi>
> Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 15:37:15 +0300 (EEST)
> 
> > ...Another thing that makes me wonder, is the tp->mss_cache > 1460 check 
> > as based on rfc3390 (and also it's precursor rfc2414) with up to 2190 
> > bytes MSS TCP can use 3 as initial cwnd...
> 
> I did the research and my memory was at least partially right.
> 
> Below is an old bogus change of mine and the later revert with
> Alexey's explanation.
> 
> This seems to be dealing with receive window calculation issues,
> rather than snd_cwnd.  But they might be related and you should
> consider this very seriously.

...Thanks about the info, I'll study it carefully and see what's
relevant in here too. And anyway we're currently on the safer side
as the potential issues only make it more conservative than the RFC 
allows, so there's no hurry to get it in until the solution is
acceptable if there's indeed a need for a change.

-- 
 i.