From: Gilad Ben-Yossef <gilad@codefidence.com>
To: William Allen Simpson <william.allen.simpson@gmail.com>
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/8] Only parse time stamp TCP option in time wait sock
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2009 10:41:51 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4AE40F4F.3020004@codefidence.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4ADF5A2F.9010309@gmail.com>
Hello William,
William Allen Simpson wrote:
>> If you examine the specific context where tcp_parse_options is being
>> called here,
>> the only TCP option which is of interest is the time stamp option,
>> and this code path
>> is only being taken when we already know that the original socket had
>> used the time stamp option.
>>
>> So while I agree that in general you are right, I do believe that in
>> the specific context
>> of this patch we should call tcp_parse_options with the established
>> flag on and let it
>> know we are expecting to see a time stamp option, which is what I was
>> referring to.
>>
> No, a major reason for time-wait is rebooted systems. We don't "know"
> anything about them, and they certainly don't know anything about us.
>
> As I mentioned, this is about edge cases.
I just read thoroughly the code in question again -
We use tcp_parse_option to check if there is a time stamp option in the
packet and if so, get the time stamp from it. We do this only when the
time wait minisocket has information of time stamp from the original
connection. We don't use any other TCP option or other inoformation from
the options read via that call.
The above statements are true both for the original code and my patch.
If there is any corner case with my code it is true for the original
code as well.
>
> My suggestion, as this patch is not essential to the other patches in the
> series, is to separate it. As I'm relatively new to this list, I don't
> know the best practice. But I'd like to support the others and delay
> this for further consideration.
I have no objection to separate or drop it altogether if there is a
specific technical reason why you think the code is wrong. It certainly
is possible I've done some done mistake. In that case, I would love
nothing more to hearing what it is and hopefully fixing it.
But "Maybe there are edge cases we didn't think about" is not specific
enough to work upon :-)
Thanks for all the feedback,
Gilad
--
Gilad Ben-Yossef
Chief Coffee Drinker & CTO
Codefidence Ltd.
Web: http://codefidence.com
Cell: +972-52-8260388
Skype: gilad_codefidence
Tel: +972-8-9316883 ext. 201
Fax: +972-8-9316884
Email: gilad@codefidence.com
Check out our Open Source technology and training blog - http://tuxology.net
"Sorry cannot parse this, its too long to be true :)"
-- Eric Dumazet on netdev mailing list
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-10-25 8:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-10-21 8:56 [PATCH v2 0/8] Per route TCP options Gilad Ben-Yossef
2009-10-21 8:56 ` [PATCH v2 1/8] Only parse time stamp TCP option in time wait sock Gilad Ben-Yossef
2009-10-21 9:49 ` William Allen Simpson
2009-10-21 10:07 ` Gilad Ben-Yossef
2009-10-21 18:59 ` William Allen Simpson
2009-10-25 8:41 ` Gilad Ben-Yossef [this message]
2009-10-21 8:56 ` [PATCH v2 2/8] Allow tcp_parse_options to consult dst entry Gilad Ben-Yossef
2009-10-21 13:03 ` Ilpo Järvinen
2009-10-21 14:07 ` Gilad Ben-Yossef
2009-10-22 9:41 ` Ilpo Järvinen
2009-10-21 8:56 ` [PATCH v2 3/8] Add dst_feature to query route entry features Gilad Ben-Yossef
2009-10-21 8:56 ` [PATCH v2 4/8] Add the no SACK route option feature Gilad Ben-Yossef
2009-10-21 19:22 ` William Allen Simpson
2009-10-25 8:44 ` Gilad Ben-Yossef
2009-10-21 8:56 ` [PATCH v2 5/8] Allow disabling TCP timestamp options per route Gilad Ben-Yossef
2009-10-21 19:22 ` William Allen Simpson
2009-10-25 8:43 ` Gilad Ben-Yossef
2009-10-21 8:56 ` [PATCH v2 6/8] Allow to turn off TCP window scale opt " Gilad Ben-Yossef
2009-10-21 8:57 ` [PATCH v2 7/8] Allow disabling of DSACK TCP option " Gilad Ben-Yossef
2009-10-21 8:57 ` [PATCH v2 8/8] Document future removal of sysctl_tcp_* options Gilad Ben-Yossef
2009-10-21 9:40 ` William Allen Simpson
2009-10-21 10:23 ` Gilad Ben-Yossef
2009-10-21 19:30 ` William Allen Simpson
2009-10-22 4:32 ` Bill Fink
2009-10-22 4:57 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-10-22 10:53 ` William Allen Simpson
2009-10-25 9:09 ` Gilad Ben-Yossef
2009-10-26 0:21 ` Bill Fink
2009-10-26 5:03 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-10-26 8:05 ` Gilad Ben-Yossef
2009-10-26 15:08 ` Bill Fink
2009-10-26 15:51 ` Gilad Ben-Yossef
2009-10-27 5:09 ` Bill Fink
2009-10-25 8:45 ` Gilad Ben-Yossef
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4AE40F4F.3020004@codefidence.com \
--to=gilad@codefidence.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=william.allen.simpson@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).