netdev - Re: [PATCH v1 net] TCP_USER_TIMEOUT and tcp_keepalive should conform to RFC5482

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:   Wed, 9 Aug 2017 17:47:57 -0700
From:   Rao Shoaib <rao.shoaib@...cle.com>
To:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, codesoldier1@...il.com
Cc:     hkchu@...gle.com, ycheng@...gle.com, kuznet@....inr.ac.ru,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 net] TCP_USER_TIMEOUT and tcp_keepalive should conform
 to RFC5482

On 08/09/2017 05:30 PM, David Miller wrote:
> From: Joe Smith <codesoldier1@...il.com>
> Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 17:20:32 -0700
>
>> Making Linux conform to standards and behavior that is logical seems
>> like a good enough reason.
> That's an awesome attitude to have when we're implementing something
> new and don't have the facility already.
>
> But when we have something already the only important consideration is
> not breaking existing apps which rely on that behavior.
>
> That is much, much, more important than standards compliance.
>
> If users are confused, just fix the documentation.
David,

If it was just confusion than sure fixing the documentation is fine. 
What if the logic is incorrect, does not conform to the standard that is 
says it is implementing and easy to fix with little or no risk of breakage.

The proposed patch changes a feature that no one uses. It also imposes 
the relation ship between keepalive and timeout values that is required 
by the RFC and make sense.

You are the final authority, if you say we should just fix the 
documentation than that is fine.

Shoaib