netdev - ip_rt_min_delay : why 2s by default?

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 30 May 2008 12:37:06 +0200
From:	Benoit PAPILLAULT <benoit.papillault@...e.fr>
To:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	davem@...emloft.net
Subject: ip_rt_min_delay : why 2s by default?

Hi there,

I'm doing work on a IP routing protocol designed for mobility. During 
testing phase, I encounter some 2s delay when routing table are updated.

I compare the routing table (displayed by route -n) and the routing 
cache (displayed by route -Cn) and there was always a delay of 2s to 
propagate changes from the routing table to the routing cache. Hence, 
packet loss occurs.

Digging into the kernel source (net/ipv4/route.c), I found the 
ip_rt_min_delay variable which is indeed 2s. I changed it to 0 through 
/proc/sys/net/ipv4/route/min_delay and it seems that all my problems are 
gone.

Questions:

1/ Is it safe to put 0 in min_delay? I'd like to make sure that it will 
not trigger some bugs or inconsistencies later.

2/ If it is safe, then why it's not the default value? Is there a reason 
for 2s or is it simply a compromise that so far nobody cares about 2s delay?

Regards,
Benoit
PS: Test was done with a 2.6.21.6 kernel

--
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