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  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]
Date:	Tue, 1 Jul 2014 00:00:28 +0300
From:	Octavian Purdila <>
To:	Neal Cardwell <>
Cc:	Netdev <>, Daniel Lee <>,
	Yuchung Cheng <>, Jerry Chu <>
Subject: Re: [net-next v2 02/13] tcp: tcp_v[46]_conn_request: fix snt_synack initialization

On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 10:11 PM, Neal Cardwell <> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 7:50 AM, Octavian Purdila
> <> wrote:
>> In that case perhaps it is better to add a new field (or rename the
>> existing one if it is not needed anymore) to store the syn arrival
>> time? I think it is confusing to store the syn arrival time in the
>> "synack sent time" field.
> That would be reasonable, but I think the longstanding "snt_synack"
> name is also good, since the primary purpose of that field is to
> measure the RTT of the SYNACK packet.

So, if we use it to measure the RTT, with this approach, wouldn't the
RTT estimate be artificially high if sending the syn-ack fails? And
wouldn't that negatively affect congestion control ?

On second thought, if we need to retransmit the syn-ack then it does
not matter much. Is this the reason we don't care?
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists