netdev - Re: RACK not getting disabled

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

Date:   Mon, 18 Sep 2017 15:05:22 -0700
From:   Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@...gle.com>
To:     hiren panchasara <hiren@...ugglingcoder.info>
Cc:     Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: RACK not getting disabled

On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 2:55 PM, hiren panchasara
<hiren@...ugglingcoder.info> wrote:
> On 09/18/17 at 02:46P, Yuchung Cheng wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 2:29 PM, hiren panchasara
>> <hiren@...ugglingcoder.info> wrote:
>> > On 09/18/17 at 02:18P, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 2017-09-18 at 13:14 -0700, hiren panchasara wrote:
>> >> > Hi all, I am trying to disable rack to see 3dupacks in action during
>> >> > loss-detection but based on the pcap, I see that it's still trigger
>> >> > loss-recovery on the first SACK (as if RACK is still enabled/active).
>> just to be clear: 3-dupack (aka RFC3517) is still enabled with RACK
>> enabled. I am experimenting a patch set to disable 3-dupack approach
>> completely.
>
> So any incoming packet undergoes both checks right now to decide whether
> to mark it lost based on 3-dupacks (and eventually rfc6675) and also
> rack? Any insights into how they are working together would be great.
>
> Also whichever scheme detects loss first can kick connection into
> loss-recovery, right?
Yes. essentially we run both algorithms. the recovery starts when any
packet is deemed lost

>
> Thanks for the clarification, Yuchung.
>
> Cheers,
> Hiren