netdev - Re: [PATCH v3 net 2/5] tcp: prevent bogus FRTO undos with non-SACK flows

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:   Wed, 04 Apr 2018 17:44:33 +0000
From:   Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@...gle.com>
To:     Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@...gle.com>
Cc:     Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi>,
        Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 net 2/5] tcp: prevent bogus FRTO undos with non-SACK flows

On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 1:41 PM Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@...gle.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 10:22 AM, Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@...gle.com>
wrote:
> > n Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 1:13 PM Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@...gle.com> wrote:
> >> Agreed. That's a good point. And I would much preferred to rename that
> >> to FLAG_ORIG_PROGRESS (w/ updated comment).
> >
> >> so I think we're in agreement to use existing patch w/ the new name
> >> FLAG_ORIG_PROGRESS
> >
> > Yes, SGTM.
> >
> > I guess this "prevent bogus FRTO undos" patch would go to "net" branch
and
> > the s/FLAG_ORIG_SACK_ACKED/FLAG_ORIG_PROGRESS/ would go in "net-next"
> > branch?
> huh? why not one patch ... this is getting close to patch-split paralyses.

The flag rename seemed like a cosmetic issue that was not needed for the
fix. Smelled like net-next to me. But I don't feel strongly. However you
guys want to package it is fine with me. :-)

neal