[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e50f6e80-61c8-4c6e-a7c2-9b3ab7b27d90@wizmail.org>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2025 12:46:27 +0100
From: Jeremy Harris <jgh@...mail.org>
To: Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@...gle.com>, Jeremy Harris <jgh@...m.org>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, edumazet@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH 1/2] TCP: note received valid-cookie Fast Open
option
Thanks for the review. I'm preparing a v2, and a patch to "ss" in iproute2.
> The "TCP:" prefix is not the typical prefix for Linux TCP changes. A
> "tcp:" is much more common.
>
> Please follow the convention that we try to adhere to for TCP TFO
> changes by using something like:
>
> tcp: fastopen: note received valid-cookie Fast Open option
Will change for v2.
>> - syn_data_acked:1;/* data in SYN is acked by SYN-ACK */
>> + syn_data_acked:1,/* data in SYN is acked by SYN-ACK */
>> + syn_fastopen_in:1; /* Received SYN includes Fast Open option */
>
> IMHO this field name and comment are slightly misleading.
>
> Sometimes when a SYN is received with a TFO option the server will
> fail to create a child because the TFO cookie is incorrect.
>
> When this bit is set, we know not only that the "Received SYN includes
> Fast Open option", but we also know that the TFO cookie was correct
> and a child socket was created.
>
> So I would suggest a more specific comment and field name, like:
>
> syn_fastopen_child:1; /* created TFO passive child socket */
Done.
--
Cheers,
Jeremy
Powered by blists - more mailing lists