netdev - RE: [PATCH net-next] net: Add TCP_FORCE

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <beaecc68abcc4b268d68ce558fc5766e@AcuMS.aculab.com>
Date:   Thu, 23 Apr 2020 08:52:35 +0000
From:   David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To:     'Cambda Zhu' <cambda@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
CC:     Dust Li <dust.li@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        Tony Lu <tonylu@...ux.alibaba.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH net-next] net: Add TCP_FORCE_LINGER2 to TCP setsockopt

From: Cambda Zhu
> Sent: 21 April 2020 13:18
> 
> This patch adds a new TCP socket option named TCP_FORCE_LINGER2. The
> option has same behavior as TCP_LINGER2, except the tp->linger2 value
> can be greater than sysctl_tcp_fin_timeout if the user_ns is capable
> with CAP_NET_ADMIN.

Did you consider adding an extra sysctl so that the limit
for TCP_LINGER2 could be greater than the default?

It might even be sensible to set the limit to a few times
the default.

All users can set the socket buffer sizes to twice the default.
Being able to do the same for the linger timeout wouldn't be a problem.

	David

-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)