netdev - Re: TCP NewReno and single retransmit

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: <CADVnQy=zk3hWOzG3Oo3kj6ve382SBbaVhQmhK9Eky1DCnbES-A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 4 Nov 2014 09:38:47 -0500
From:	Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@...gle.com>
To:	Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@...gle.com>
Cc:	Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <mleitner@...hat.com>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: TCP NewReno and single retransmit

On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 2:59 AM, Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@...gle.com> wrote:
> Thanks for checking. So my suggested fix of removing the hold state is
> the "less careful variant" that RFC does not recommend. I would rather
> have the proposed 2-liner fix than implementing the section 6
> heuristics to detect spurious retransmit. It's not worth the effort.
> Everyone should use SACK.

Agreed. The simple 2-liner seems like the simplest and lowest-risk
fix. And given that >95% of public Internet flows and an even higher
proportion of datacenter flows use SACK, it's not worth spending time
optimizing NewReno.

neal
--
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