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: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 16:19:03 +0300 (EEST) From: "Ilpo Järvinen" <ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi> To: Cedric Le Goater <legoater@...e.fr> cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH net-2.6.24 0/3]: More TCP fixes On Wed, 3 Oct 2007, Cedric Le Goater wrote: > Ilpo Järvinen wrote: > > On Wed, 3 Oct 2007, Cedric Le Goater wrote: > > > >> 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. Ah, that's path 1) then... Since you seem to have enough time, I would say that the path 1 is good as well and bugs unrelated to the fix will show up there too... I should have stated it explicitly that with path 2 those 3 patches should not be applied because the aim is not a fix but reproducal. Path 2 was intentionally left without the potentional fix as then nice backtrace informs when we can stop trying (which would hopefully occurred pretty soon) :-). But lets discard that path 2... > all of them on a fresh git pull of net-2.6.24 That's fine, they're pretty well in sync (mm and net-2.6.24, and soon 2.6.24-rcs too). -- i.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists