netdev - Re: [PATCH net] tcp: avoid multiple ssthresh reductions in on retransmit window

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 17 Jun 2014 14:20:38 +0200
From:	Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>
To:	Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@...gle.com>
Cc:	Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@...gle.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>,
	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
	Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] tcp: avoid multiple ssthresh reductions in on
 retransmit window

On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 08:44:04PM -0400, Neal Cardwell wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 8:25 PM, Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@...gle.com> wrote:
> > However Linux is inconsistent on the loss of a retransmission. It
> > reduces ssthresh (and cwnd) if this happens on a timeout, but not in
> > fast recovery (tcp_mark_lost_retrans). We should fix that and that
> > should help dealing with traffic policers.
> 
> Yes, great point!

Does it mean the patch itself would be acceptable if the reasoning in
its commit message was changed? Or would you prefer a different way to
unify the two situations?

                                                        Michal Kubecek

--
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