netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] tcp: call tcp

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:   Sat, 28 Jul 2018 15:42:35 +0800
From:   Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@...il.com>
To:     Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Cc:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] tcp: call tcp_drop() in tcp collapse

On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 11:38 AM, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 8:35 PM Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@...il.com> wrote:
>
>> So what about LINUX_MIB_TCPOFOMERGE ?
>> Regarding LINUX_MIB_TCPOFOMERGE,  a skb is already covered by another
>> skb, is that dropping the packet or simply lowering the memory
>> overhead ?
>
> What do you think ?
>
> If you receive two times the same payload, don't you have to drop one
> of the duplicate ?
>
> There is a a big difference between the two cases.

If the drop caused some data lost (which may then cause retransmition
or something), then this is a really DROP.
While if the drop won't cause any data lost, meaning it is a
non-harmful behavior, I think it should not be defined as DROP.
This is my suggestion anyway.

Thanks
Yafang