netdev - Re: [RFC][PATCH] [TPROXY] kick out TIME_WAIT sockets in case a new connection comes in with the same tuple

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: <20081210.005728.41175879.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Wed, 10 Dec 2008 00:57:28 -0800 (PST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	bazsi@...abit.hu
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, tproxy@...ts.balabit.hu, hidden@....bme.hu,
	panther@...abit.hu
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] [TPROXY] kick out TIME_WAIT sockets in case a new
 connection comes in with the same tuple

From: Balazs Scheidler <bazsi@...abit.hu>
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 09:52:22 +0100

> I understand. Here are the alternatives I considered:
>  1) the patch above, by extending the socket structures
>  2) expand skb, of course I felt this is worse than the patch I posted
>  3) call inet_twsk_deschedule() from the prerouting hook
> 
> The 3rd one does not require any expansion of the related structures,
> however it'd mean that the TCP state is not only looked up, but also
> changed from the TPROXY target. I felt this ugly, but the ugliness would
> be constrained to the tproxy code. Shall I post a patch implementing
> option #3 above?

It would be interesting to see what it looks like, so if you
don't mind then yes please toss that together so we can have
a look.
--
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