netdev - Re: [PATCH -next] tcp: make undo_cwnd mandatory for congestion modules

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]

Date:   Fri, 18 Nov 2016 15:38:01 -0500
From:   Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@...gle.com>
To:     Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
Cc:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] tcp: make undo_cwnd mandatory for congestion modules

On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de> wrote:
> David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
>> If you really suspect that highspeed et al. need to implement their own
>> undo_cwnd instead of using the default reno fallback, I would really
>> rather that this gets either fixed or explicitly marked as likely wrong
>> (in an "XXX" comment or similar).
>
> Ok, fair enough.  I am not familiar with these algorithms, I will check
> what they're doing in more detail and if absolutely needed resubmit this
> patch with XXX/FIXME/TODO comments added.

BTW, FWIW I really like the idea of making undo_cwnd required. It
simplifies the core code and forces CC modules to think about what
undo should look like for their CC module.

And I suspect you are right that those CC modules have an issue that
should be fixed.

neal