netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH net-next] tcp: introduce tcp_tw_interval to specifiy the time of TIME-WAIT

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: <20120927.130529.620560818048014548.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Thu, 27 Sep 2012 13:05:29 -0400 (EDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	amwang@...hat.com
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, kuznet@....inr.ac.ru, kaber@...sh.net,
	edumazet@...gle.com, nhorman@...driver.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next] tcp: introduce tcp_tw_interval to
 specifiy the time of TIME-WAIT

From: Cong Wang <amwang@...hat.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 16:41:01 +0800

>         In commercial Unix systems, this kind of parameters, such as 
>         tcp_timewait in AIX and tcp_time_wait_interval in HP-UX, have 
>         already been available. Their implementations allow users to tune 
>         how long they keep TCP connection as TIME-WAIT state on the 
>         millisecond time scale."

This statement only makes me happy that these systems are not as
widely deployed as Linux is.

Furthermore, the mere existence of a facility in another system
is never an argument for why we should have it too.  Often it's
instead a huge reason for us not to add it.

Without appropriate confirmation that an early time-wait reuse is
valid, decreasing this interval can only be dangerous.
--
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