On Mon, 2 Jul 2007, David Miller wrote:
From: Ilpo_Järvinen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 02:04:25 +0300 (EEST)
There are still some things I must think carefully in sacktag processing
since it does not validate start_seq and end_seq at all which can be
abused currently at
From: Ilpo_Järvinen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 13:52:35 +0300 (EEST)
1. fack_count in skb (your proposal months ago)
+ Trivial arithmetics, no walking necessary to find it (ever)
- Very expensive in storage wise (like you have stated earlier)
We have a 4-byte hole in
From: Ilpo_Järvinen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 02:04:25 +0300 (EEST)
There are still some things I must think carefully in sacktag processing
since it does not validate start_seq and end_seq at all which can be
abused currently at least in tcp-2.6. ...I would rather put end to
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, David Miller wrote:
From: Ilpo_Järvinen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 02:04:25 +0300 (EEST)
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, David Miller wrote:
Patch applied.
...I think it should go to stable as well.
I thought Baruch's DSACK seperation that created this
Commit 6f74651ae626ec672028587bc700538076dfbefb is found guilty
of breaking DSACK counting, which should be done only for the
SACK block reported by the DSACK instead of every SACK block
that is received along with DSACK information.
Signed-off-by: Ilpo Järvinen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
From: Ilpo_Järvinen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 16:07:37 +0300 (EEST)
Commit 6f74651ae626ec672028587bc700538076dfbefb is found guilty
of breaking DSACK counting, which should be done only for the
SACK block reported by the DSACK instead of every SACK block
that is received along
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, David Miller wrote:
From: Ilpo_Järvinen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 16:07:37 +0300 (EEST)
Commit 6f74651ae626ec672028587bc700538076dfbefb is found guilty
of breaking DSACK counting, which should be done only for the
SACK block reported by the DSACK
From: Ilpo_Järvinen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 02:04:25 +0300 (EEST)
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, David Miller wrote:
Patch applied.
...I think it should go to stable as well.
I thought Baruch's DSACK seperation that created this problem didn't
go in until 2.6.22?
-
To unsubscribe
