netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] tcp: better handle TCP_TX

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: <20251014090629.7373baa7@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2025 09:06:29 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Cc: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, "David S . Miller"
 <davem@...emloft.net>, Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, Neal Cardwell
 <ncardwell@...gle.com>, Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>, Kuniyuki
 Iwashima <kuniyu@...gle.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
 eric.dumazet@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] tcp: better handle TCP_TX_DELAY on established
 flows

On Tue, 14 Oct 2025 02:40:39 -0700 Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > What about using a nf rule to drop all the 'tun0' egress packet, instead
> > of a qdisc?
> >
> > In any case I think the pending patches should be ok.  
> 
> Or add a best effort, so that TCP can have some clue, vast majority of
> cases is that the batch is 1 skb :)

FWIW I don't see an official submission and CI is quite behind 
so I'll set the test to ignored for now.