netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3] [TCP]: Reordered ACK's (old) SACKs not included to discarded MIB

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: <20070925.224711.26514452.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Tue, 25 Sep 2007 22:47:11 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3] [TCP]: Reordered ACK's (old) SACKs not
 included to discarded MIB

From: "Ilpo_Järvinen" <ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 12:04:07 +0300

> In case of ACK reordering, the SACK block might be valid in it's
> time but is already obsoleted since we've received another kind
> of confirmation about arrival of the segments through snd_una
> advancement of an earlier packet.
> 
> I didn't bother to build distinguishing of valid and invalid
> SACK blocks but simply made reordered SACK blocks that are too
> old always not counted regardless of their "real" validity which
> could be determined by using the ack field of the reordered
> packet (won't be significant IMHO).
> 
> DSACKs can very well be considered useful even in this situation,
> so won't do any of this for them.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi>

This looks fine to me, applied.

If the skipped case is interesting we can add another MIB
stat for it :-)
-
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