netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] tcp: Add TCP

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: <CAKfDRXh5t9n2G7Af_4ZDOTbXO9_nA30vrxTcgy+_wGDE8m_+nQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 22 Oct 2014 18:10:25 +0200
From:	Kristian Evensen <kristian.evensen@...il.com>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:	Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] tcp: Add TCP_FREEZE socket option

Hi,

On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 5:54 PM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
> This asymmetry looks strange
>
> Following sequence should be allowed :
>
> getsockopt(...  TCP_FREEZE, &val, ...)
> setsockopt(...  TCP_FREEZE, &val, ...)
>
> So setsockopt() should accept val = 0

Thanks for you comment and I agree. The reasoning behind my original
ordering was that I wanted the values to be in the order which made
most logical sense to me, which is Enable (1), Disable (2) and Disable
with TR-ACK (3). However, I see now that when using the option and
when combined with getsockopt(), this does not make much sense. I will
wait for some more feedback and send a revised version tomorrow with
the following ordering: Disable (0), Enable (1), Disable with TR-ACK
(2).

Thanks again,
Kristian
--
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