netdev - Re: [PATCH] tcp FRTO: in-order-only "TCP proxy" fragility workaround

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:	Fri, 19 Sep 2008 00:04:23 +0300 (EEST)
From:	"Ilpo Järvinen" <ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi>
To:	"Dâniel Fraga" <fragabr@...il.com>
cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, thomas.jarosch@...ra2net.com,
	billfink@...dspring.com, Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Patrick Hardy <kaber@...sh.net>,
	netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, kadlec@...ckhole.kfki.hu
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tcp FRTO: in-order-only "TCP proxy" fragility workaround

On Thu, 18 Sep 2008, Dâniel Fraga wrote:

> On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 13:23:28 +0300 (EEST)
> "Ilpo Järvinen" <ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi> wrote:
> 
> > There were some other timer related complications in 2.6.25 but it's so 
> > long time ago that I hardly remember anything about those anymore (and 
> > I'm not an expert on those things anyway). And it's still very open issue 
> > how that would cause the problem you're seeing.
> 
> 	I opened a bug report to timer developers...
> let's see if they can help:
> 
> http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11588

Ok. Another potential candidate might be scheduler (my wording was sloppy 
when I used "timer related complications" while time related was my main 
intention)...

Anyway, if/when you succeed collecting some strace of the server 
processes, please let me know (though putting a full one available might 
not be wise thing like I said earlier). After I thought it a bit, it might 
be enough the start the strace with -p for all server processes of a 
service during a stall and then resolve it after some amount of waiting 
with nmap (and hope that strace doesn't resolve it by interfering 
something relevant :-), you will see that from the fact that it resolves 
without nmap then). That would probably reveal if the processes where 
waiting in accept() or not, and if not, where they were.

-- 
 i.