netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] fq_codel: report congestion notification at enqueue time

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]

Date:	Thu, 28 Jun 2012 22:29:34 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	eric.dumazet@...il.com
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, dave.taht@...il.com,
	codel@...ts.bufferbloat.net, therbert@...gle.com,
	mattmathis@...gle.com, ycheng@...gle.com, nanditad@...gle.com,
	ncardwell@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] fq_codel: report congestion notification at
 enqueue time

From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 07:24:08 +0200

> By the way, I am not sure NET_XMIT_CN is correctly used in RED.
> 
> Or maybe my understanding of NET_XMIT_CN is wrong.
> 
> If a the packet is dropped in enqueue(), why use NET_XMIT_CN instead of 
> NET_XMIT_DROP ?
> 
> This seems to mean : I dropped _this_ packet, but dont worry too much, I
> might accept other packets, so please go on...

I am pretty sure the behavior in RED is intentional.

It's a soft push back on TCP.

We're taking this path when we are unable to sucessfully ECN mark a
packet.  But our intention was to do so.

--
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