netdev - Re: TSO trimming question

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:	Fri, 21 Dec 2007 11:28:37 +0200 (EET)
From:	"Ilpo Järvinen" <ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi>
To:	Bill Fink <billfink@...dspring.com>
cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
	John Heffner <jheffner@....edu>
Subject: Re: TSO trimming question

On Fri, 21 Dec 2007, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:

> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007, Bill Fink wrote:
> 
> > If so it seems like a lot of unnecessary
> > work just to avoid a 1 in 4 billion event, since it's my understanding
> > that the whole tcp_tso_should_defer function is just an optimization
> > and not a criticality to the proper functioning of TCP, especially
> > considering it hasn't even been executing at all up to now.
> 
> It would still be good to not return 1 in that case we didn't flag the 
> deferral, how about adding one additional tick (+comment) in the zero 
> case making tso_deferred == 0 again unambiguously defined, e.g.:
> 
> 	tp->tso_deferred = min_t(u32, jiffies, 1);

Blah, max_t of course :-).


-- 
 i.