netdev - Re: A Linux TCP SACK Question

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: <1e41a3230804041107i2bce2c59oc6f2a55d7ca78b0f@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 4 Apr 2008 11:07:40 -0700
From:	"John Heffner" <johnwheffner@...il.com>
To:	wenji@...l.gov
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: A Linux TCP SACK Question

On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 10:49 AM, Wenji Wu <wenji@...l.gov> wrote:
>  I was thinking that if the reordered ACKs/SACKs cause confusion in the
>  sender, and sender will unnecessarily reduce either the CWND or the
>  TCP_REORDERING threshold. I might need to take a serious look at the SACK
>  implementation.

It sounds very likely that you're encountering a bug or thinko in the sack code.

This actually brings to mind an old topic -- NCR (RFC4653).  There was
some discussion of implementing this, which I think is simpler and
more robust than Linux's current reordering threshold calculation.

  -John
--
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