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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 21:52:04 +0100 From: Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de> To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> Cc: fw@...len.de, netdev@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH -next 0/2] net: allow setting ecn via routing table David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote: > From: Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de> > 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. Agreed, sysctl is comparable to default route. And I think 'passive ecn' makes perfect sense for a default route. But for a specific host/network? Either I know that path to $x is ecn-safe (i.e. turn it on for both ends) or I don't, in which case the global 'passive' default ("if peer requests it they probably know what they're doing") is fine. > > 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. The passive mode was added 5 years ago via commit 255cac91c3c9ce7dca7713b93ab03c75b7902e0e (tcp: extend ECN sysctl to allow server-side only ECN), and I think the commit log rationale makes sense. So, what about changing the default to 1 in net-next? We could add automatic 'no-ecn' to retransmitted syns to avoid ecn blackholes (Daniel Borkmann has a patch for this), and, in case ecn=1 causes too much breakage we can always revert (and re-consider ecn per route settings as an intermediate step). What do you think? Thanks, Florian -- 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists