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]

Message-ID: <46D6FA04.5050808@hp.com>
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