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: <1491492267.10124.79.camel@edumazet-glaptop3.roam.corp.google.com>
Date:   Thu, 06 Apr 2017 08:24:27 -0700
From:   Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:     Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@...gle.com>
Cc:     Gao Feng <gfree.wind@...mail.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>,
        James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
        Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>,
        Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 1/1] net: tcp: Don't increase the TCP_MIB_OUTRSTS
 when fail to transmit RST

On Thu, 2017-04-06 at 10:08 -0400, Neal Cardwell wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 10:05 AM, Gao Feng <gfree.wind@...mail.com> wrote:
> > If so, we should increase the TCP_MIB_OUTRSTS too when fail to alloc skb.
> > When machine is overloaded and mem is exhausted, it may fail to alloc skb.
> 
> Moving the increment of TCP_MIB_OUTRSTS to the top of
> tcp_send_active_reset() sounds fine to me.


Yes.

Keep in mind that whatever hard we try to send the packet, something
might drop it later without TCP stack knowing it.

So it is not really useful to test the immediate actions that are under
our control.



Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ