netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 net-next] tcp: avoid tx starvation by SYNACK packets

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]

Message-ID: <1340686296.10893.115.camel@edumazet-glaptop>
Date:	Tue, 26 Jun 2012 06:51:36 +0200
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	subramanian.vijay@...il.com, dave.taht@...il.com,
	hans.schillstrom@...csson.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	ncardwell@...gle.com, therbert@...gle.com, brouer@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next] tcp: avoid tx starvation by SYNACK packets

On Mon, 2012-06-25 at 15:43 -0700, David Miller wrote:

> I don't agree with this change.
> 
> What is the point in having real classification configuration if
> arbitrary places in the network stack are going to override SKB
> priority with a fixed priority setting?
> 
> I bet the person who set listening socket priority really meant it and
> does not expect you to override it.


If I add a test on listener_sk->sk_priority being 0, would you accept
the patch ? If classification is done after tcp stack, it wont be hurt
by initial skb priority ?

instead of :

	/* SYNACK sent in SYNCOOKIE mode have low priority */
	skb->priority = nocache ? TC_PRIO_FILLER : sk->sk_priority;

Having :

	/* SYNACK sent in SYNCOOKIE mode have low priority */
	skb->priority = (nocache && !sk->sk_priority) ?
			TC_PRIO_FILLER : sk->sk_priority;


--
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