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
| ||
|
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists