netdev - Re: [PATCH 2/2 net-next] tcp: sk_add_backlog() is too agressive for TCP

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: <20120423.222735.96654838533519471.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Mon, 23 Apr 2012 22:27:35 -0400 (EDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	eric.dumazet@...il.com
Cc:	rick.jones2@...com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, therbert@...gle.com,
	ncardwell@...gle.com, maze@...gle.com, ycheng@...gle.com,
	ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2 net-next] tcp: sk_add_backlog() is too agressive
 for TCP

From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 04:20:12 +0200

> On Mon, 2012-04-23 at 22:37 +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> 
>> We could try to coalesce ACKs before backlogging them. I'll work on
>> this.
>> 
> 
> I did an experiment, and found a basic coalescing was not working in
> case of packet loss and SACK storm.
> 
> Doing a smart coalescing in this case sounds really complex.
> 
> Should we really continue this way ? 

We can consider it later, but for now let's defer.

I'll apply your sk_add_backlog patches for the time being.

Thanks Eric.
--
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