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]
Date:	Thu, 11 Nov 2010 13:58:02 -0800
From:	"Hua Zhong" <hzhong@...il.com>
To:	"'Eric Paris'" <eparis@...hat.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:	<davem@...emloft.net>, <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>, <pekkas@...core.fi>,
	<jmorris@...ei.org>, <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>, <kaber@...sh.net>
Subject: RE: [RFC PATCH] network: return errors if we know tcp_connect failed

> Yes, I realize this is little different than if the
> SYN was dropped in the first network device, but it is different
> because we know what happened!  We know that connect() call failed
> and that there isn't anything coming back.

I would argue that -j DROP should behave exactly as the packet is dropped in the network, while -j REJECT should signal the failure to the application as soon as possible (which it doesn't seem to do).

It does not only make sense, but also is a highly useful testing technique that we use -j DROP in OUTPUT to emulate network losses and see how the application behaves.




--
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

Powered by blists - more mailing lists