From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (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 2CE4B1D5CF8; Tue, 8 Apr 2025 15:19:32 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1744125573; cv=none; b=W6HSvaU+Qp6T9g7ttYtxQlKtftXpjvzI31xZYZ0yMOfBeva9Z/SAASglqPQKhtMiOTnC563v7BTj/GzdfGubzMjgx6BsQBz1Pp12/aTmluwXpsDFCKFxS1OLAsQ+erPcgtoRbuusInbqj1FzLoOLdjfntGnDWxtYHxFK36JE3k4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1744125573; c=relaxed/simple; bh=A3EMV0kbtof4IMctmx/H1T9wwrNnVlomYIe5malimOo=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=dNKWOrygEpYB0CylS4uMpcdAQdLWUKsW34BU09ppc2+3ps5HqSvDfavme3h67wql9IT07KcKkMktRbNLhRkUBCg1vYwlsw/Pg2G7GH3oWnKeaZ3ZhSNVjUi6KWWC2Lu8PizuxVHengEibgwA4hXwurbnkSkKyikWuurARsRUoHg= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=uQ/+sd2y; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="uQ/+sd2y" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A572DC4CEE5; Tue, 8 Apr 2025 15:19:31 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1744125572; bh=A3EMV0kbtof4IMctmx/H1T9wwrNnVlomYIe5malimOo=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=uQ/+sd2yUkOyZCy0TrYo9HA+HX5/sOPiibUymO8pZa8LqrNrGxcmCKYWezEgBfWOe QdnsA5+yx3RTLUvTZ2TNmHN7cvF5Dm/50cNJyGmqpahO1avUISha2FEOJLiAZUnaiB uiIVEkZqP+GXEZaDZ8LBFP4xWJjfpLl2JXeNAnVuEKqrJms8+MHDyQHKilSLalFBHa gVGWauN1ALRp4ImOfELyNthp9g+eRrClvvnGZbojU9DFAfiMXGVVNDNsfUTLEukydv nze27xFQ0GfLx2+J5Vp76Irl2UmHpLI9sH+PvnSGFQ61OOT8be3ftSxPqHnv7hUbej OjgBQQdI35FHw== Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2025 08:19:30 -0700 From: Jakub Kicinski To: "Jiayuan Chen" 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 Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND net-next v3 2/2] tcp: add LINUX_MIB_PAWS_TW_REJECTED counter Message-ID: <20250408081930.2734169c@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: <46c9a3cd5888df36ec17bcc5bfd57aab687d4273@linux.dev> References: <20250407140001.13886-1-jiayuan.chen@linux.dev> <20250407140001.13886-3-jiayuan.chen@linux.dev> <46c9a3cd5888df36ec17bcc5bfd57aab687d4273@linux.dev> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Tue, 08 Apr 2025 14:57:29 +0000 Jiayuan Chen 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 ? > > I used this term to refer to devices that are located in the path of the > TCP connection 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. Upstream devices sounds a little like devices which have drivers in upstream Linux kernel :( > 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, this > can cause PAWS verification to fail more easily. > > You are right that this term is not mentioned in RFC but it's commonly used > in IT infrastructure contexts. Sorry to have caused misunderstandings. -- pw-bot: cr