netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 4/8] Add the no SACK route option feature

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: <4ADF5F77.6050407@gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:22:31 -0400
From:	William Allen Simpson <william.allen.simpson@...il.com>
To:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/8] Add the no SACK route option feature

Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote:
> Implement querying and acting upon the no sack bit in the features
> field.
> 
>  #define RTAX_FEATURE_ECN	0x00000001
> -#define RTAX_FEATURE_SACK	0x00000002
> +#define RTAX_FEATURE_NO_SACK	0x00000002
>  #define RTAX_FEATURE_TIMESTAMP	0x00000004
>  #define RTAX_FEATURE_ALLFRAG	0x00000008
>  
I just realized that unlike NO_DSACK, this change assumes removing the
sysctl and defaulting on.  I'm opposed to removing this sysctl, so I'm
opposed to this change.

I'd prefer the ability to both turn on for global default off, and
turn off for global default on.  Shouldn't that be 2 different bits?

Or should this be a toggle?  How do other systems handle it?

--
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