netdev - Re: [PATCH] make _minimum_ TCP retransmission timeout configurable

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]

Date:	Wed, 29 Aug 2007 16:31:36 -0700
From:	Rick Jones <rick.jones2@...com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	ian.mcdonald@...di.co.nz, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi
Subject: Re: [PATCH] make _minimum_ TCP retransmission timeout configurable

David Miller wrote:
> From: Rick Jones <rick.jones2@...com>
>>The trace I've been sent shows clean RTTs ranging from ~200 milliseconds 
>>to ~7000 milliseconds.
> 
> 
> Thanks for the info.
> 
> It's pretty easy to generate examples where we might have some sockets
> talking over interfaces on such a network and others which are not.
> Therefore, if we do this, a per-route metric is probably the best bet.

FWIW, the places where I've seen this come-up thusfar are where we have 
a sort of "gateway" or front-end system which is connected on one side 
to the cellphone network with the bad delays, and on the other side is 
connected to an internal network where actual losses leading to RTO's 
are epsilon.  Certainly something which could make a per-route decision 
would work there and probably quite well, though a simple sysctl does 
seem to be sufficient and would touch fewer places.

Do you think it is still worthwhile for me to rework the initial patch 
to use CTL_UNNUMBERED?

rick
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html