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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 10:10:28 -0700 From: Rick Jones <rick.jones2@...com> To: Krishna Kumar2 <krkumar2@...ibm.com> Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, ian.mcdonald@...di.co.nz, ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi, netdev@...r.kernel.org, netdev-owner@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] make _minimum_ TCP retransmission timeout configurable Krishna Kumar2 wrote: > Hi Rick, > > >>>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? > > > You could add following cleanup: > > static int proc_tcp_rto_min(ctl_table *ctl, int write, struct file *filp, > void __user *buffer, size_t *lenp, > loff_t *ppos) > { > int *valp = ctl->data; > int oldval = *valp; > int ret; > > ret = proc_dointvec_ms_jiffies(ctl, write, filp, buffer, lenp, ppos); > if (ret) > return ret; > > /* some bounds checking would be in order */ > if (write && *valp != oldval) { > if (*valp < (int)TCP_RTO_MIN || *valp > (int)TCP_RTO_MAX) { > *valp = oldval; > ret = -EINVAL; > } > } > return ret; > } Sure. > Also, isn't it enough to use u32 for valp/oldval and remove the "(int)" > typecasts? I suppose, that was some mimicing of code I'd seen elsewhere but I'll give it a shot. 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists