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:	Thu, 30 Oct 2014 15:59:58 -0400 (EDT)
From:	David Miller <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next 0/2] net: allow setting ecn via routing table

From: Florian Westphal <>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 13:23:07 +0100

> We could do that, if you prefer.
> I tried to come up with a scenario though, where sysctl_tcp_ecn=0, and
> then we want to enable 'passive' ecn for incoming connections only on
> a particular route without announcing ecn to the peer. I haven't been
> able to find any -- I think if you deem 'route to x' safe for ecn it
> might as well be enabled for both initiator and responder.  The original
> patch would be sufficient for that.
> IOW, is 'ecn from a to b but not b to a' a sensible requirement?

I think you have to apply the same logic for the sysctl (there's a
reason to only support ECN passively) as you do for the route feature
because you can logically look at the sysctl as applying to the
default route.

> Unrelated to this patch, but I'd like to see sysctl_tcp_ecn=1 as a
> default at one point (almost no routers set CE bit at this time, perhaps
> that would change if ecn usage is more widespread).

Now you're talking.

So, either passive ECN support makes sense or it does not.  To me, no
matter what the argument, it doesn't matter what realm (whole system,
specific routes) you apply that argument to.
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