netdev - Re: Netperf TCP_RR(loopback) 10% regression in 2.6.24-rc6, comparing with 2.6.22

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]

Date:	Tue, 22 Jan 2008 14:51:04 +0800
From:	"Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	rick.jones2@...com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Netperf TCP_RR(loopback) 10% regression in 2.6.24-rc6,
	comparing with 2.6.22

On Mon, 2008-01-21 at 22:22 -0800, David Miller wrote:
> From: "Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com>
> Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 14:07:19 +0800
> 
> > I am wondering if UDP stack in kernel has a bug.
> 
> If one server binds to INADDR_ANY with port N, then any other socket
> can be bound to a specific IP address with port N.  When packets
> come in destined for port N, the delivery will be prioritized
> to whichever socket has the more specific and matching binding.
What does 'more specific' mean here? I assume 127.0.0.1 should be
prioritized before 0.0.0.0 which means packets should be queued to
127.0.0.1 firstly.

> 
> So the kernel is fine.
But kernel now queues packets to 0.0.0.0.

> 
> Netperf just needs to be more careful in order to handle this kind of
> case more cleanly.
It's better if kernel works more reasonable.

-yanmin


--
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