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  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:	Wed, 18 May 2011 23:42:30 -0700
From:	tsuna <>
To:	Alexander Zimmermann <>
Cc:	David Miller <>,,,,,,,,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tcp: Implement a two-level initial RTO as per draft RFC 2988bis-02.

On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 11:36 PM, Alexander Zimmermann
<> wrote:
> If you set the initRTO=0.1s, it's good for me but bad for the rest of the
> world. That's the difference.
> Or do you want to implement a lower barrier of 1sec so that you can ensure
> that nobody set the initRTO lower than 1s?

Oh, I see.  Yes, there is a lower bound (and an upper bound) on what
values the kernel will accept as initRTO.  In the patch "Implement a
two-level initial RTO as per draft RFC 2988bis-02" above, I re-used
TCP_RTO_MIN and TCP_RTO_MAX in net/ipv4/sysctl_net_ipv4.c in order to
prevent users from setting a minRTO that's outside this range.  They
are defined as follows in tcp.h:

#define TCP_RTO_MAX     ((unsigned)(120*HZ))
#define TCP_RTO_MIN     ((unsigned)(HZ/5))

So we're talking about a [200ms ; 120s] range no matter what.

Benoit "tsuna" Sigoure
Software Engineer @
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists