netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 3/3] sunvnet: Schedule maybe_tx_wakeup as a tasklet from ldc

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:	Tue, 12 Aug 2014 21:31:57 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	Raghuram.Kothakota@...cle.com
Cc:	sowmini.varadhan@...cle.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 3/3] sunvnet: Schedule maybe_tx_wakeup as a
 tasklet from ldc_rx path

From: Raghuram Kothakota <Raghuram.Kothakota@...cle.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 21:26:28 -0700

> One important point to keep in mind that packets to different peers shouldn't
> be blocked by one blocked peer. Any flow controlling or dropping of the packets
> needs to be done on a per-port basis.

Until we use a big hammer and reset the LDC channel of that peer, we
_absolutely_ should not reorder traffic and send to non-stuck peers.

A networking stack should avoid packet reordering in all cases when it
has the ability to do so, and sending packets which came in later to
unstuck peers when there are older packets still pending to the stuck
peer violates that requirement.
--
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