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]

Message-Id: <20170809.175210.1390938117227894190.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:   Wed, 09 Aug 2017 17:52:10 -0700 (PDT)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     rao.shoaib@...cle.com
Cc:     codesoldier1@...il.com, 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

From: Rao Shoaib <rao.shoaib@...cle.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 17:47:57 -0700

> 
> 
> 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.

I want to hear more about what hkchu and ycheng have to say about
this.