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: Sun, 4 Nov 2018 09:27:34 +0800 From: Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@...il.com> To: joe@...ches.com Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] tcp: do not update snd_una if it is same with ack_seq On Sun, Nov 4, 2018 at 1:04 AM Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote: > > On Sun, 2018-11-04 at 00:54 +0800, Yafang Shao wrote: > > In the slow path, TCP_SKB_SB(skb)->ack_seq may be same with tp->snd_una, > > and under this condition we don't need to update the snd_una. > > > > Furthermore, tcp_ack_update_window() is only called in slow path, > > so introducing this check won't affect the fast path processing. > [] > > diff --git a/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c b/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c > [] > > @@ -3610,7 +3611,7 @@ static int tcp_ack(struct sock *sk, const struct sk_buff *skb, int flag) > > if (flag & FLAG_UPDATE_TS_RECENT) > > tcp_replace_ts_recent(tp, TCP_SKB_CB(skb)->seq); > > > > - if (!(flag & FLAG_SLOWPATH) && after(ack, prior_snd_una)) { > > + if (!(flag & FLAG_SLOWPATH) && flag & FLAG_SND_UNA_ADVANCED) { > > stylistic nit: > > While the precedence is correct in any case, > perhaps adding parentheses around > flag & FLAG_SND_UNA_ADVANCED > would make it more obvious. > Sure. will change it. Thanks Yafang
Powered by blists - more mailing lists