netdev - Re: [PATCH 0/9]: tcp-2.6 patchset

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: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0705271039060.2532@kivilampi-30.cs.helsinki.fi>
Date:	Sun, 27 May 2007 10:58:27 +0300 (EEST)
From:	"Ilpo Järvinen" <ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
cc:	Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/9]: tcp-2.6 patchset

On Sat, 26 May 2007, David Miller wrote:

> From: "Ilpo_Järvinen" <ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi>
> Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 11:35:53 +0300
> 
> > Dave, you could consider applying other than the last one if they
> > seem ok to you too (you'll need to rebase your tcp-2.6 in that case
> > first to apply cleanly those that touch tcp_sync_left_out :-)).
> 
> Absolutely, I'll do the quick rebase of tcp-2.6 and review +
> applying of your patches (except the last one) over the weekend.

While you're in the right context (reviewing patch 8), you could also
look if tcp_clean_rtx_queue does a right thing when passing a strange 
pkts_acked to congestion control modules. I wonder if it really should 
ignore GSO the way it does currently... I read some cc module code and 
some was adding it to snd_cwnd_cnt, etc. which is a strong indication 
that GSO should be considered... Also if the head is GSO skb that is not 
completely acked, the loop breaks with pkts_acked being zero, I doubt
that can be correct... 

...added Stephen H. & Herbert X. to this thread since also they might have 
some idea about it.

...Anyway, if it's wrong, the fix should go to net-2.6 rather than to 
tcp-2.6...

-- 
 i.