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: <3CD6E1F6-9143-43B9-A6D2-9B09F18C9C2E@nokia.com>
Date:	Thu, 26 Aug 2010 09:01:31 +0300
From:	Lars Eggert <lars.eggert@...ia.com>
To:	Jerry Chu <hkchu@...gle.com>
Cc:	Hagen Paul Pfeifer <hagen@...u.net>,
	Arnd Hannemann <hannemann@...s.rwth-aachen.de>,
	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	"ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi" <ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi>,
	"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] TCP_FAILFAST: a new socket option to timeout/abort a  connection quicker

Hi,

On 2010-8-26, at 4:49, Jerry Chu wrote:
> Yes on a 2nd look RFC5482 seems more complex than I originally thought, allowing
> many different combinations of local/adv/remote UTO... Are they really
> useful, e.g.,
> why allowing USER_TIMEOUT to be different from ADV_UTO?? My original thought
> was the local UTO will always be the same as the one advertised to
> remote so only
> one API will be needed plus bunch of flags for ENABLED, CHANGEABLE...


USER_TIMEOUT is what is locally used for a connection (i.e., takes into account what the remote peer advertised and what we'd like to use), while ADV_UTO is (only) what we'd like to use and are advertising.

(Yes, we initially thought we could make the mechanism simpler, but then we started to think through all the corner cases...)

Lars
Download attachment "smime.p7s" of type "application/pkcs7-signature" (3815 bytes)