netdev - Re: [PATCH] TCPCT+1: initial SYN exchange with SYNACK data

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: <4AC9AA3E.2090001@gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 05 Oct 2009 04:11:42 -0400
From:	William Allen Simpson <william.allen.simpson@...il.com>
To:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] TCPCT+1: initial SYN exchange with SYNACK data

William Allen Simpson wrote:
> David Miller wrote:
>> struct tcp_sock is already WAY TOO BIG on 64-bit systems, adding 20
>> more bytes to it for some odd-ball feature is not something I'm
>> willing to do, sorry.
>>
> I see we're cross-posting at the same time....  Since in your previous
> review (last year) this issue was not mentioned, is there some other
> data organization that you would suggest?
> 
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.network/102779
> 
>   "This looks mostly fine to me.  I would even advocate not using a config
>    option for this."
> 
As a quick followup, I wish this had been raised in my previous posting,
where I'd given the headers, for exactly this kind of feedback. :-)

Given that size is now a concern, would a single kref pointer with a u16
field for flags be acceptable?  I could bury the rest in the kref block.

Would that be acceptable without a config option?
--
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