netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] [TCP]: MTUprobe: receiver window & data available checks fixed

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 22 Nov 2007 17:27:29 +0800
From:	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
To:	Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi>
Cc:	John Heffner <jheffner@....edu>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] [TCP]: MTUprobe: receiver window & data available checks fixed

On Wed, Nov 21, 2007 at 06:01:27PM +0200, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
>
> Signed-off-by: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi>

Thanks for the patch Ilpo!

I've just got a couple small questions.

> @@ -1307,6 +1308,7 @@ static int tcp_mtu_probe(struct sock *sk)
>  	/* Very simple search strategy: just double the MSS. */
>  	mss_now = tcp_current_mss(sk, 0);
>  	probe_size = 2*tp->mss_cache;
> +	size_needed = probe_size + (tp->reordering + 1) * mss_now;

Should we use mss_now here or mss_cache? It would seem that an
over-estimate would be safer than an under-estimate.

Also should that be Tcprexmtthresh segments at the current MTU
or the probed MTU?

Cheers,
-- 
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
-
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