netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 2/3] bpf: add TCP_BPF_RTO_MAX for bpf

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: <CAL+tcoDnS2j5nqS_BpbK8=7p8AK=-Jw7dAh3QWbstNOtQRLUyw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2025 10:52:04 +0800
From: Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@...il.com>
To: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>
Cc: Stanislav Fomichev <stfomichev@...il.com>, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, 
	kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, dsahern@...nel.org, ast@...nel.org, 
	daniel@...earbox.net, andrii@...nel.org, eddyz87@...il.com, song@...nel.org, 
	yonghong.song@...ux.dev, john.fastabend@...il.com, kpsingh@...nel.org, 
	sdf@...ichev.me, haoluo@...gle.com, jolsa@...nel.org, horms@...nel.org, 
	ncardwell@...gle.com, kuniyu@...zon.com, bpf@...r.kernel.org, 
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/3] bpf: add TCP_BPF_RTO_MAX for bpf_setsockopt

On Sat, Feb 15, 2025 at 10:39 AM Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev> wrote:
>
> On 2/14/25 3:53 PM, Jason Xing wrote:
> > Another related topic about rto min test, do you think it's necessary
> > to add TCP_BPF_RTO_MIN into the setget_sockopt test?
>
> hmm... not sure why it is related to the existing TCP_BPF_RTO_MIN.
> I thought this patch is adding the new TCP_RTO_MAX_MS...
>
> or you want to say, while adding a TCP_RTO_MAX_MS test, add a test for the
> existing TCP_BPF_RTO_MIN also because it is missing in the setget_sockopt?
> iirc, I added setget_sockopt.c to test a patch that reuses the kernel
> do_*_{set,get}sockopt. Thus, it assumes the optname supports both set and get.
> TCP_BPF_RTO_MIN does not support get, so I suspect setget_sockopt will not be a
> good fit. They are unrelated, so I would leave it out of your patch for now.

>From my perspective, rto min or max is quite similar and only related
to the time limitation of RTO, so I assume they can have the same
usage... Right, what you said is exactly what I would like to know. As
you said, handling rto min will not be included in this series.

Thanks,
Jason