netdev - Re: [PATCH] ipv4: Namespaceify min_adv

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]

Message-ID: <20220118112148.3e1acad4@kicinski-fedora-PC1C0HJN.hsd1.ca.comcast.net>
Date:   Tue, 18 Jan 2022 11:21:48 -0800
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     cgel.zte@...il.com
Cc:     davem@...emloft.net, yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org, edumazet@...gle.com,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        xu xin <xu.xin16@....com.cn>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ipv4: Namespaceify min_adv_mss sysctl knob

On Tue, 18 Jan 2022 12:40:55 +0000 cgel.zte@...il.com wrote:
> From: xu xin <xu.xin16@....com.cn>
> 
> Different netns have different requirement on the setting of min_adv_mss
> sysctl that the advertised MSS will be never lower than. The sysctl
> min_adv_mss can indirectly affects the segmentation efficiency of TCP.
> 
> So enable min_adv_mss to be visible and configurable inside the netns.
> 
> Signed-off-by: CGEL ZTE <cgel.zte@...il.com>

CGEL ZTE, whatever it is, is most definitely not a person so it can't
sign off patches. Please stop adding the CGEL task, you can tell us
what it stands for it you want us to suggest an alternative way of
marking.

As for the patch:

# Form letter - net-next is closed

We have already sent the networking pull request for 5.17
and therefore net-next is closed for new drivers, features,
code refactoring and optimizations. We are currently accepting
bug fixes only.

Please repost when net-next reopens after 5.17-rc1 is cut.

Look out for the announcement on the mailing list or check:
http://vger.kernel.org/~davem/net-next.html

RFC patches sent for review only are obviously welcome at any time.