netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [RFC/PATCH] "strict" ipv4 reassembly

To: herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] "strict" ipv4 reassembly
From: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 17:51:26 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: niv@xxxxxxxxxx, akepner@xxxxxxx, dlstevens@xxxxxxxxxx, rick.jones2@xxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20050518001054.GB27212@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20050517232556.GA26846@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <428A871F.1000308@xxxxxxxxxx> <20050518001054.GB27212@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
From: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] "strict" ipv4 reassembly
Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 10:10:54 +1000

> On Tue, May 17, 2005 at 05:06:55PM -0700, Nivedita Singhvi wrote:
> > 
> > Mainline linux certainly has this (per-inetpeer ip_id) - but
> > at least one distro did not (use inetpeer) :). Not sure
> > what the current situation is.
> 
> What was the reason for this? Perhaps we can solve their problems
> with inetpeer in a better way than disabling it?

Andi Kleen thought inetpeer was a pig, so he removed it from SUSE's
kernel and replaced it with a per-cpu salted IP ID generator.  The
initial verion he wrote had serious bugs that severely decreased the
effective ID space, and thus made the NFS corruption problem happen
more frequently.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>