netdev - Re: [PATCH net 4/5] tcp: prevent bogus undos when SACK is not enabled

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: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1803091741040.29120@whs-18.cs.helsinki.fi>
Date:   Fri, 9 Mar 2018 21:23:50 +0200 (EET)
From:   Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi>
To:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
cc:     Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@...gle.com>, ncardwell@...gle.com,
        Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, edumazet@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 4/5] tcp: prevent bogus undos when SACK is not
 enabled

On Fri, 9 Mar 2018, David Miller wrote:

> From: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi>
> Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2018 16:11:47 +0200 (EET)
> 
> > Unfortunately I don't have now permission to publish the time-seq
> > graph about it but I've tried to improve the changelog messages so
> > that you can better understand under which conditions the problem
> > occurs.
> 
> It is indeed extremely unfortunate that you wish to justify a change
> for which you cannot provide the supporting data at all.

Well, the permission for time-seq graps was/is still simply just in 
pending state and then my patience on sending v2 out ran out :-).

Given that I perceived right from the start that the main purpose for
that "data" was to create a packetdrill test for that testsuite (that
is still in the soon-to-be-published state after all these years ;-)),
I didn't find significant benefit from a time-seq graph compared with
more verbose description that is now place in the changelog. In fact,
I think that time-seq graph well into the flow will be less useful than
the current explination in the changelog if one wants to come up a
packetdrill test but I'm no packetdrill expert.

-- 
 i.