| 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. |
| Previous by Date: | Re: [RFC/PATCH] "strict" ipv4 reassembly, Thomas Graf |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [RFC/PATCH] "strict" ipv4 reassembly, David S. Miller |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [RFC/PATCH] "strict" ipv4 reassembly, Herbert Xu |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [RFC/PATCH] "strict" ipv4 reassembly, Andi Kleen |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |