netdev - Re: [PATCH] TCP_FAILFAST: a new socket option to timeout/abort a connection quicker

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <423116d1d215b0fb3d1c966fb8167508@localhost>
Date:	Tue, 24 Aug 2010 11:10:44 +0200
From:	Hagen Paul Pfeifer <hagen@...u.net>
To:	Arnd Hannemann <hannemann@...s.rwth-aachen.de>
Cc:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	"H.K. Jerry Chu" <hkchu@...gle.com>, <ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi>,
	<davem@...emloft.net>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] TCP_FAILFAST: a new socket option to timeout/abort a connection quicker


On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 10:04:37 +0200, Arnd Hannemann wrote:

> Why not call it TCP_USERTIMEOUT?
> Later you can also send it via the TCP user timeout option... (RFC5482)
> Hmm... is the ms granularity really needed? Does it make sense to abort
> a connection below a second?

I am working on a patch for UTO, the lion share is already implemented. As
I can see this patch introduce a upper limit (max) where UTO on the other
hand provides a lower limit (min). Therefore I am not sure if we should
call this option TCP_USERTIMEOUT.

Cheers, Hagen
--
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