From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out-178.mta1.migadu.com (out-178.mta1.migadu.com [95.215.58.178]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2D03C15F330; Tue, 8 Apr 2025 15:50:07 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=95.215.58.178 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1744127412; cv=none; b=ihUGJkAdJaqA0TmiA86Rnh8C0oZeaEh1DTinS/U5jhm7lEzFdZIbi3mQmce0hdReINKjDLrS5FM8MgXdOWsNQ6YEHHJPC9SfpgEpDG7GchQf/A/cb/R52EtRgpg7z656W6/9KD3aNvpkSNONgUZWyrP82sSyhQmSTBcC8IO7A1k= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1744127412; c=relaxed/simple; bh=j47vGAAtksccEUYr4w4LdgceuKnPRkuIL9WLW+TNwfc=; h=MIME-Version:Date:Content-Type:From:Message-ID:Subject:To:Cc: In-Reply-To:References; b=ADMAWDIddvYuWNoKZqD0UOlahvt0YoCGNXkbhOUqdKmXz8g2yhnLt6wouQm93zkujMRXY6tthSGIsCx9XQMXE5Q0fpzEBN4ULUPmtBQzIzBGba5sJerQcKTa/WGCFvruESuNmbq5jOqjMaOq3KFsH2fDrwyNC+Qgm2n3EAkrz9Y= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b=w8HKgmbF; arc=none smtp.client-ip=95.215.58.178 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b="w8HKgmbF" Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.dev; s=key1; t=1744127405; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=1JxA4fI6xIrcW42/17J5BLUCCtQy1R9vPzLmio89gWM=; b=w8HKgmbFDA6me6xLQKYCtHsgTBQJkZUNMZoPezGQlJYXmJp0SwFCxZRgz3lUUDED31Q3qC 33OiRkxRXOoYTzUOvEe73DP6TC6diypGj6WrFTQgZglu9lEKYeT4Ev0FIzOtWbx7Bj1RFW EEE7J6OCdK5oPDjDCJsONpWPB/Ywj+0= Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2025 15:49:59 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Report-Abuse: Please report any abuse attempt to abuse@migadu.com and include these headers. From: "Jiayuan Chen" Message-ID: TLS-Required: No Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND net-next v3 2/2] tcp: add LINUX_MIB_PAWS_TW_REJECTED counter To: "Jakub Kicinski" Cc: "Eric Dumazet" , bpf@vger.kernel.org, mrpre@163.com, "David S. Miller" , "Paolo Abeni" , "Simon Horman" , "Jonathan Corbet" , "Neal Cardwell" , "Kuniyuki Iwashima" , "David Ahern" , "Steffen Klassert" , "Sabrina Dubroca" , "Nicolas Dichtel" , "Antony Antony" , "Christian Hopps" , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20250408081930.2734169c@kernel.org> References: <20250407140001.13886-1-jiayuan.chen@linux.dev> <20250407140001.13886-3-jiayuan.chen@linux.dev> <46c9a3cd5888df36ec17bcc5bfd57aab687d4273@linux.dev> <20250408081930.2734169c@kernel.org> X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_OUT April 8, 2025 at 23:19, "Jakub Kicinski" wrote: >=20 >=20On Tue, 08 Apr 2025 14:57:29 +0000 Jiayuan Chen wrote: > >=20 >=20> > When TCP is in TIME_WAIT state, PAWS verification uses > > > LINUX_PAWSESTABREJECTED, which is ambiguous and cannot be distingu= ished > > > 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. > > >=20 >=20>=20 >=20>=20 >=20> I really dislike the repetition of "upstream network devices". > > Is it mentioned in some RFC ?=20 >=20>=20=20 >=20> I used this term to refer to devices that are located in the path = of the > > TCP connection > >=20 >=20 > Could we use some form of: "devices that are located in the path of the > TCP connection" ? Maybe just "devices in the networking path" ? > I hope that will be sufficiently clear in all contexts. >=20 >=20Upstream devices sounds a little like devices which have drivers in >=20 >=20upstream Linux kernel :( That makes sense :). Thanks. > >=20 >=20> such as firewalls, NATs, or routers, which can perform > > SNAT or DNAT and these network devices use addresses from their own = limited > > address pools to masquerade the source address during forwarding, th= is > > can cause PAWS verification to fail more easily. > >=20 >=20> You are right that this term is not mentioned in RFC but it's comm= only used > > in IT infrastructure contexts. Sorry to have caused misunderstanding= s. >=20 >=20--=20 >=20 > pw-bot: cr >