netdev - Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] tcp: Add snd_wnd to 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:   Fri, 13 Sep 2019 17:53:05 -0400
From:   Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@...gle.com>
To:     Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@...gle.com>
Cc:     Thomas Higdon <tph@...com>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jonathan Lemon <jonathan.lemon@...il.com>,
        Dave Jones <dsj@...com>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Dave Taht <dave.taht@...il.com>,
        Soheil Hassas Yeganeh <soheil@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] tcp: Add snd_wnd to TCP_INFO

On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 5:29 PM Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@...gle.com> wrote:
> > What if the comment is shortened up to fit in 80 columns and the units
> > (bytes) are added, something like:
> >
> >         __u32   tcpi_snd_wnd;        /* peer's advertised recv window (bytes) */
> just a thought: will tcpi_peer_rcv_wnd be more self-explanatory?

Good suggestion. I'm on the fence about that one. By itself, I agree
tcpi_peer_rcv_wnd sounds much more clear. But tcpi_snd_wnd has the
virtue of matching both the kernel code (tp->snd_wnd) and RFC 793
(SND.WND). So they both have pros and cons. Maybe someone else feels
more strongly one way or the other.

neal