netdev - Re: [PATCH 4/4 v3] net: Fix for dst_negative

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:	Mon, 19 Oct 2009 10:04:53 +0530
From:	Krishna Kumar2 <krkumar2@...ibm.com>
To:	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
Cc:	dada1@...mosbay.com, davem@...emloft.net,
	herbert@...dor.apana.org.au, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4 v3] net: Fix for dst_negative_advice

Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>  wrote on 10/19/2009 09:42:09 AM:

> > diff -ruNp org/net/ipv4/tcp_timer.c new/net/ipv4/tcp_timer.c
> > --- org/net/ipv4/tcp_timer.c   2009-10-16 21:30:56.000000000 +0530
> > +++ new/net/ipv4/tcp_timer.c   2009-10-16 21:31:30.000000000 +0530
> > @@ -141,14 +141,14 @@ static int tcp_write_timeout(struct sock
> >
> >     if ((1 << sk->sk_state) & (TCPF_SYN_SENT | TCPF_SYN_RECV)) {
> >        if (icsk->icsk_retransmits)
> > -         dst_negative_advice(&sk->sk_dst_cache);
> > +         dst_negative_advice(&sk->sk_dst_cache, sk);
> >        retry_until = icsk->icsk_syn_retries ? : sysctl_tcp_syn_retries;
> >     } else {
> >        if (retransmits_timed_out(sk, sysctl_tcp_retries1)) {
> >           /* Black hole detection */
> >           tcp_mtu_probing(icsk, sk);
> >
> > -         dst_negative_advice(&sk->sk_dst_cache);
> > +         dst_negative_advice(&sk->sk_dst_cache, sk);
> >        }
> >
> >        retry_until = sysctl_tcp_retries2;
>
> It is good that your patch is broken in pieces, but will the intermediate
patches
> still function correctly. I.e are they bisect safe?

I have only compile tested each patch, but I assume it could break
something.
Individual patches can be made to function correctly by renaming patch#2 to
patch#4 and move patch#3 and #4 ahead.

Should I resubmit with the changed order?

Thanks,

- KK

--
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