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  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 <>
To:     Eric Dumazet <>
Cc:     David Miller <>,
        netdev <>,
        LKML <>
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 <> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 8:35 PM Yafang Shao <> 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.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists