netdev - Re: [PATCH] TCP_FAILFAST: a new socket option to timeout/abort a connection quicker

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:	Thu, 26 Aug 2010 09:12:24 +0200
From:	Arnd Hannemann <hannemann@...s.rwth-aachen.de>
To:	Lars Eggert <lars.eggert@...ia.com>
CC:	Jerry Chu <hkchu@...gle.com>, Hagen Paul Pfeifer <hagen@...u.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	"ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi" <ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi>,
	"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] TCP_FAILFAST: a new socket option to timeout/abort a
 connection quicker

Hi Lars,

Am 26.08.2010 08:01, schrieb Lars Eggert:
> On 2010-8-26, at 4:49, Jerry Chu wrote:
>   
>> Yes on a 2nd look RFC5482 seems more complex than I originally thought, allowing
>> many different combinations of local/adv/remote UTO... Are they really
>> useful, e.g.,
>> why allowing USER_TIMEOUT to be different from ADV_UTO?? My original thought
>> was the local UTO will always be the same as the one advertised to
>> remote so only
>> one API will be needed plus bunch of flags for ENABLED, CHANGEABLE...
>>     
>
> USER_TIMEOUT is what is locally used for a connection (i.e., takes into account what the remote peer advertised and what we'd like to use), while ADV_UTO is (only) what we'd like to use and are advertising.
>
> (Yes, we initially thought we could make the mechanism simpler, but then we started to think through all the corner cases...)
>   

But from the application point of view it is enough to request a
specific UTO
as a socket option, (which will then get announced via ADV_UTO), right?
Is there any reason, (besides local policy) to not abort the connection
locally
after the time the application specified via the above mentioned socket
option?


Best regards,
Arnd
--
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