netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] tcp: provide SYN headers for passive connections

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]

Date:	Mon, 04 May 2015 07:36:37 -0700
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	Eric B Munson <emunson@...mai.com>
Cc:	Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] tcp: provide SYN headers for passive
 connections

On Mon, 2015-05-04 at 07:31 -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-05-04 at 10:21 -0400, Eric B Munson wrote:
> 
> > The getsockopt() for TCP_SAVE_SYN doesn't offer much over returning 0
> > from TCP_SAVED_SYN if the headers are not available. Why not collapse
> > these into a single option?  If you need to track the difference between
> > the headers are not avialable and should have been and the headers
> > should not be available it can be done through error codes from
> > getsockopt().
> 
> A single option is not good, because it adds confusion.
> 
> Note that we need to set the bit on any socket state, and doing this
> with a single option is not very easy. ( You got this wrong in your
> patch btw)

Another argument for having two options is for TCP_REPAIR support.

If you want to properly check/restore a socket, including its
TCP_SAVE_SYN state, then you definitely need 2 options.

 

--
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