linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] tcp: Implement a two-level initial RTO as per draft RFC 2988bis-02.

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]

Message-ID: <BANLkTimB70u15aGt8BeDNRneZUAMOpfjcQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 19 May 2011 00:07:09 -0700
From:	tsuna <tsunanet@...il.com>
To:	Alexander Zimmermann <alexander.zimmermann@...sys.rwth-aachen.de>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, kuznet@....inr.ac.ru,
	pekkas@...core.fi, jmorris@...ei.org, yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org,
	kaber@...sh.net, hagen@...u.net, eric.dumazet@...il.com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tcp: Implement a two-level initial RTO as per draft RFC 2988bis-02.

On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 11:52 PM, Alexander Zimmermann
<alexander.zimmermann@...sys.rwth-aachen.de> wrote:
>> So we're talking about a [200ms ; 120s] range no matter what.
>
> Why is 200ms a valid lower bound for initRTO? I'm aware of
> measurements that 1s is save for Internet, but I don't know of any
> studies that 200ms is save...

The constants that are quoted aren't specific to the initRTO.  They're
used to bound the RTO as it gets adjusted during the TCP session.  See
`tcp_set_rto' in tcp_input.c for reference.

-- 
Benoit "tsuna" Sigoure
Software Engineer @ www.StumbleUpon.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/