netdev - Re: Add a SOCK_DESTROY operation to close sockets from userspace

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:	Thu, 19 Nov 2015 14:04:01 -0800
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
Cc:	Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	zenczykowski <zenczykowski@...il.com>,
	Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@...gle.com>,
	Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
	Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Erik Kline <ek@...gle.com>,
	Dmitry Torokhov <dtor@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: Add a SOCK_DESTROY operation to close sockets from userspace

On Thu, 2015-11-19 at 22:53 +0100, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
> 

> You don't steer QUIC source addresses at all? I think most networking
> failures are of transient nature thus the kernel routing subsystem is
> not aware of link quality and packets get lost anyway e.g. in the air?
> Thus binding on multiple interfaces and keepalives seem still
> appropriate, no?

Imagine you are in your home near a wifi AP, then you close a door and
switch to 3G, or another AP.

No down time. packet will eventually reach its destination.

Application does not have to care.

Why QUIC should absolutely use '4-tuple UDP connections' when this is
likely to fail in this scenario ?


--
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