[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANn89iJRyEkfiUWbxhpCuKjEm0J+g7DiEa2JQPBQdqBmLBJq+w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2025 16:18:47 +0200
From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
To: Jiayuan Chen <jiayuan.chen@...ux.dev>
Cc: bpf@...r.kernel.org, mrpre@....com,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@...gle.com>,
Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...zon.com>, David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>,
Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>, Sabrina Dubroca <sd@...asysnail.net>,
Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com>, Antony Antony <antony.antony@...unet.com>,
Christian Hopps <chopps@...n.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND net-next v3 2/2] tcp: add LINUX_MIB_PAWS_TW_REJECTED
counter
On Mon, Apr 7, 2025 at 4:00 PM Jiayuan Chen <jiayuan.chen@...ux.dev> wrote:
>
> When TCP is in TIME_WAIT state, PAWS verification uses
> LINUX_PAWSESTABREJECTED, which is ambiguous and cannot be distinguished
> from other PAWS verification processes.
>
> Moreover, when PAWS occurs in TIME_WAIT, we typically need to pay special
> attention to upstream network devices, so we added a new counter, like the
> existing PAWS_OLD_ACK one.
I really dislike the repetition of "upstream network devices".
Is it mentioned in some RFC ?
>
> Also we update the doc with previously missing PAWS_OLD_ACK.
>
> usage:
> '''
> nstat -az | grep PAWSTimewait
> TcpExtPAWSTimewait 1 0.0
> '''
>
> Suggested-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
> Signed-off-by: Jiayuan Chen <jiayuan.chen@...ux.dev>
Reviewed-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists