netdev - Re: [PATCH net-2.6.24 0/3]: More TCP fixes

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:	Wed, 03 Oct 2007 14:48:43 +0200
From:	Cedric Le Goater <legoater@...e.fr>
To:	Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi>
CC:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-2.6.24 0/3]: More TCP fixes

Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Oct 2007, Cedric Le Goater wrote:
> 
>> Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
>>> Sacktag fastpath_cnt_hint seems to be very tricky to get right...
>>> I suppose this one fixes Cedric's case. I cannot say for sure    
>>> until there is something more definite indication of
>>> tcp_retrans_try_collapse origin than what the simple late WARN_ON
>>> gave for us. ...Especially since it's non-trivial to have skb
>>> hint "correctly" positioned in the write_queue while still ending
>>> up calling that function. However, considering how difficult it
>>> seems to be for Cedric to reproduce, it might well be this one.
>>>
>>> In addition, I noticed another reset which wasn't previously   
>>> converted to WARN_ON, so doing that now. Boot + simple xfer
>>> tested. Please apply to net-2.6.24.
>> I'm dropping the previous patches you sent me and switching to this patchset. 
>> right ?
> 
> Yes you can do that... However, there are two ways forward:
> 
> 1) Drop and test with this patchset long enough to verify it's gone...
> 2) No dropping and get the more exact trace by reproducing, which can 
>    point out to tcp_retrans_try_collapse confirming the source of the
>    bug or revealing yet another bug...
> 
> The first one has one drawback, it cannot prove the fix very well since 
> the bug could just not occur by chance... Path 2 would clearly show the 
> place from where the problem originates because we will know that it got 
> triggered! I personally would prefer path 2 but whether you want to go for 
> that depends on the time you want to invest in it...
> 
> ...I rediffed the tcp_verify_fackets patch too (below) just in case it 
> would be something else in you case and you choose path 1 (put it on top 
> of this patchset, applies with some offsets). In case the problem is gone, 
> it shouldn't trigger and if it does, we'll have another bug caught.

I have a spare node so I'm starting 2) with the 3 patches you sent and that
last one which applied fine. all of them on a fresh git pull of net-2.6.24

> Anyway, thanks for ccing right persons and netdev right from the 
> beginning.

thanks to git ! :) 

C.
 

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html