netdev - Re: [net-next 0/3] tipc: improve interaction socket-link

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

Date:   Mon, 16 Jan 2017 16:54:56 -0500 (EST)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     jon.maloy@...csson.com
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
        parthasarathy.bhuvaragan@...csson.com, ying.xue@...driver.com,
        maloy@...jonn.com, tipc-discussion@...ts.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [net-next 0/3] tipc: improve interaction socket-link

From: Jon Maloy <jon.maloy@...csson.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2017 20:35:08 +0000

> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: netdev-owner@...r.kernel.org [mailto:netdev-owner@...r.kernel.org]
>> On Behalf Of David Miller
>> Sent: Monday, 16 January, 2017 14:45
>> To: Jon Maloy <jon.maloy@...csson.com>
>> Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org; viro@...iv.linux.org.uk; Parthasarathy Bhuvaragan
>> <parthasarathy.bhuvaragan@...csson.com>; Ying Xue
>> <ying.xue@...driver.com>; maloy@...jonn.com; tipc-
>> discussion@...ts.sourceforge.net
>> Subject: Re: [net-next 0/3] tipc: improve interaction socket-link
>> 
>> From: Jon Maloy <jon.maloy@...csson.com>
>> Date: Tue,  3 Jan 2017 10:26:45 -0500
>> 
>> > We fix a very real starvation problem that may occur when a link
>> > encounters send buffer congestion. At the same time we make the
>> > interaction between the socket and link layer simpler and more
>> > consistent.
>> 
>> This doesn't apply to net-next, also the Date in your emails is 10 days
>> in the past.  What's going on here?
> 
> I don't know. This series was sent in on Jan 3rd, and applied by you the same day. Maybe the mail server decided to send you a duplicate?

If you look in the headers, they have "Received-by: " fields with
January 13th in the date.  So something pushed them out again.

Really strange...