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  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:   Tue, 17 Sep 2019 10:21:48 -0700
From:   Eric Dumazet <>
To:     Jason Baron <>
Cc:     Thomas Higdon <>, netdev <>,
        Jonathan Lemon <>,
        Dave Jones <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] tcp: Add TCP_INFO counter for packets received out-of-order

 Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 10:13 AM Jason Baron <> wrote:
> Hi,
> I was interested in adding a field to tcp_info around the TFO state of a
> socket. So for the server side it would indicate if TFO was used to
> create the socket and on the client side it would report whether TFO
> worked and if not that it failed with maybe some additional states
> around why it failed. I'm thinking it would be maybe 3 bits.
> My question is whether its reasonable to use the unused bits of
> __u8    tcpi_delivery_rate_app_limited:1;. Or is this not good because
> the size hasn't changed? What if I avoided using 0 for the new field to
> avoid the possibility of not knowing if 0 because its the old kernel or
> 0 because that's now its a TFO state? IE the new field could always be >
> 0 for the new kernel.

I guess that storing the 'why it has failed' would need more bits.

I suggest maybe using an event for this, instead of TCP_INFO ?

As of using the bits, maybe the monitoring application does not really care
if running on an old kernel where the bits would be zero.

Commit eb8329e0a04db0061f714f033b4454326ba147f4 reserved a single
bit and did not bother about making sure the monitoring would detect if this
runs on an old kernel.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists