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
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Wed, 03 Oct 2007 14:48:43 +0200
From:	Cedric Le Goater <>
To:	Ilpo Järvinen <>
CC:	David Miller <>, Netdev <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-2.6.24 0/3]: More TCP fixes

Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Oct 2007, Cedric Le Goater wrote:
>> Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
>>> Sacktag fastpath_cnt_hint seems to be very tricky to get right...
>>> I suppose this one fixes Cedric's case. I cannot say for sure    
>>> until there is something more definite indication of
>>> tcp_retrans_try_collapse origin than what the simple late WARN_ON
>>> gave for us. ...Especially since it's non-trivial to have skb
>>> hint "correctly" positioned in the write_queue while still ending
>>> up calling that function. However, considering how difficult it
>>> seems to be for Cedric to reproduce, it might well be this one.
>>> In addition, I noticed another reset which wasn't previously   
>>> converted to WARN_ON, so doing that now. Boot + simple xfer
>>> tested. Please apply to net-2.6.24.
>> I'm dropping the previous patches you sent me and switching to this patchset. 
>> right ?
> Yes you can do that... However, there are two ways forward:
> 1) Drop and test with this patchset long enough to verify it's gone...
> 2) No dropping and get the more exact trace by reproducing, which can 
>    point out to tcp_retrans_try_collapse confirming the source of the
>    bug or revealing yet another bug...
> The first one has one drawback, it cannot prove the fix very well since 
> the bug could just not occur by chance... Path 2 would clearly show the 
> place from where the problem originates because we will know that it got 
> triggered! I personally would prefer path 2 but whether you want to go for 
> that depends on the time you want to invest in it...
> ...I rediffed the tcp_verify_fackets patch too (below) just in case it 
> would be something else in you case and you choose path 1 (put it on top 
> of this patchset, applies with some offsets). In case the problem is gone, 
> it shouldn't trigger and if it does, we'll have another bug caught.

I have a spare node so I'm starting 2) with the 3 patches you sent and that
last one which applied fine. all of them on a fresh git pull of net-2.6.24

> Anyway, thanks for ccing right persons and netdev right from the 
> beginning.

thanks to git ! :) 


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists