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, 3 Oct 2007 16:19:03 +0300 (EEST)
From:	"Ilpo Järvinen" <ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi>
To:	Cedric Le Goater <legoater@...e.fr>
cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-2.6.24 0/3]: More TCP fixes

On Wed, 3 Oct 2007, Cedric Le Goater wrote:

> Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> > On Wed, 3 Oct 2007, Cedric Le Goater wrote:
> > 
> >> 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.

Ah, that's path 1) then... Since you seem to have enough time, I would say 
that the path 1 is good as well and bugs unrelated to the fix will show up 
there too...

I should have stated it explicitly that with path 2 those 3 patches should 
not be applied because the aim is not a fix but reproducal. Path 2 was 
intentionally left without the potentional fix as then nice backtrace 
informs when we can stop trying (which would hopefully occurred 
pretty soon) :-). But lets discard that path 2...

> all of them on a fresh git pull of net-2.6.24

That's fine, they're pretty well in sync (mm and net-2.6.24, and 
soon 2.6.24-rcs too).

-- 
 i.