netdev - Re: [PATCH net] tcp: process the 3rd ACK with sk

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <cfc3ba0a-4c91-4c58-9c98-6285720473c8@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2024 11:17:37 +0200
From: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
To: Matthieu Baerts <matttbe@...nel.org>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
 Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@...gle.com>
Cc: mptcp@...ts.linux.dev, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
 David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
 Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...zon.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] tcp: process the 3rd ACK with sk_socket for for
 TFO/MPTCP

On 7/17/24 17:09, Matthieu Baerts wrote:
> On 17/07/2024 16:57, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>> I had no time yet to run all our packetdrill tests with Kuniyuki patch
>> because of the ongoing netdev conference.
>>
>> Is it ok for you if we hold your patch for about 5 days ?
> 
> Sure, no problem, take your time!
> 
>> I would like to make sure we did not miss anything else.
> 
> I understand!
> 
>> I am CCing Neal, perhaps he can help to expedite the testing part
>> while I am busy.
> 
> Thank you, no urgency here.
> 
> If it's OK with you, I can send a v2 using Kuniyuki's suggestion --
> simply limiting the bypass to SYN+ACK only -- because it is simpler and
> ready to be sent, but also to please the CI because my v1 was rejected
> by the CI because I sent it just before the sync with Linus tree. We can
> choose later to pick the v2, the previous one, or a future one.

I think it would be better to have this patch going through the netdev 
CI, so a repost would be appreciated. I also thing Kuniyuki's suggestion 
should be preferred, so I would say go for it :)

@Neal could you please run the pktdrill tests on the new, upcoming 
version, instead?

Thanks,

Paolo