linux-kernel - Re: [patch 13/20] timer: Switch to a non cascading wheel

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]

Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1606151651520.5839@nanos>
Date:	Wed, 15 Jun 2016 16:53:12 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjanvandeven@...il.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Chris Mason <clm@...com>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 13/20] timer: Switch to a non cascading wheel

On Tue, 14 Jun 2016, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Original TCP RFCs tell timeout is infinite ;)
> 
> Practically, conntrack has a 5 days timeout, but I really doubt anyone
> expects an idle TCP flow to stay 'alive' when nothing is sent for 5
> days.

So would 37hrs ~= 1.5 days be a reasonable cutoff or will stuff fall apart and
people be surprised?

Thanks,

	tglx