netdev - RE: [RFC Patch net-next] tcp: add a global sysctl to control TCP delayed ack

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <AE90C24D6B3A694183C094C60CF0A2F6026B7113@saturn3.aculab.com>
Date:	Thu, 17 Jan 2013 13:25:12 -0000
From:	"David Laight" <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To:	"Thomas Graf" <tgraf@...g.ch>
Cc:	"Cong Wang" <amwang@...hat.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Eric Dumazet" <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	"Rick Jones" <rick.jones2@...com>,
	"Stephen Hemminger" <shemminger@...tta.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: RE: [RFC Patch net-next] tcp: add a global sysctl to control TCP delayed ack

> Not that I disagree with this fundamentally but we already
> have a socket option to enable the functionality. All this
> patch does is making the same functionality available to
> users that are not able to make modification on the
> application level.

My reading of TCP_QUICKACK documentation is that it is a request
to send an ack now - rather than permanently disable delayed acks.
Having to do an extra system call after every rcv() call
is rather OTT.

Or did you mean some other socket option?

	David



--
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