| 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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 14:01:58 -0800 From: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com> To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, ycheng@...gle.com, rick.jones2@...com, netdev@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: is non-inheritance of congestion control algorithm from the listen socket a bug or a feature? On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 22:56:26 +0100 Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote: > Le mardi 29 novembre 2011 à 16:52 -0500, David Miller a écrit : > > > There is really no reason to keep the current behavior. > > > > If an application sets the congestion control algorithm on a listening > > socket to a non-default value, what effect could possibly be intended? > > > > Congestion control doesn't even come into play at all on a listening > > socket, therefore the only logical expectation is that it inherits to > > the child. > > > > The only other logical behavior would be to forbid this operation on a > > listening socket, since it has no effect, but that doesn't make any > > sense now does it? :-) > > Moreover, an application can use setsockopt(TCP_CONGESTION) before > calling listen() (while socket is still in CLOSE state) Agreed, it was just an oversight of the initial design. The setsockopt() on the listening socket is ignored. -- 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