linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] tcp: handle TCP_TIME_WAIT/TCP_NEW_SYN_RECV in tcp_set

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]

Date:   Thu, 9 Nov 2017 23:11:10 +0800
From:   Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@...il.com>
To:     Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>,
        yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org, rostedt@...dmis.org, mingo@...hat.com,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] tcp: handle TCP_TIME_WAIT/TCP_NEW_SYN_RECV
 in tcp_set_state tracepoint

2017-11-09 22:58 GMT+08:00 Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>:
> On Thu, 2017-11-09 at 06:52 -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
>> Wow.
>>
>>
>> Since all three variants of sockets (full sockets, request sockets,
>> timewait sockets) are all hashed into ehash table these days, they all
>> have the fields at the same offset
>>
>> For IPv4, that would be :
>>
>> __sk_common.skc_daddr    (or inet_daddr)
>> __sk_common.skc_rcv_saddr (or inet_rcv_saddr )
>> __sk_common.skc_dport     (or inet_dport)
>> __sk_common.skc_num       (or inet_num)
>>
>> Look at __inet_lookup_established() and INET_MATCH() : They deal with
>> the three variants, without having to look at sk_state.
>>
>> If you were using the fields that are common to all sockets, no need to
>> add all this unnecessary complexity.
>>
>
> Not to mention that your patch took care of IPv4 only.
>
> I can not say how sad I am that in 2017 IPv6 seems to be second class
> citizen.
>

I'm also very sad that I'm still using IPv4 in 2017 : (

Okay then another issue,
shoule we reduce the complexity in  the function tcp4_seq_show() ?

Thanks
Yafang