On Sat, 2018-08-04 at 09:05 +0200, Greg KH wrote:
>
> Ok, then it's my fault :)
>
> Odds are it did not apply and so I didn't backport it. If you think it
> should be there, please provide a working backport.
It has whitespace issues but that's about it. Will send a version which
applies cleanl
On Fri, Aug 03, 2018 at 04:53:27PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: David Woodhouse
> Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2018 11:55:37 +0100
>
> > I see the first four in 4.9.116 but not the fifth (adding
> > tcp_ooo_try_coalesce()).
> >
> > Is that intentional?
>
> I don't work on the 4.9 -stable backports,
From: David Woodhouse
Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2018 11:55:37 +0100
> I see the first four in 4.9.116 but not the fifth (adding
> tcp_ooo_try_coalesce()).
>
> Is that intentional?
I don't work on the 4.9 -stable backports, so I personally have
no idea.
I submitted for 4.17 and 4.14
On Mon, 2018-07-23 at 12:03 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: Eric Dumazet
> Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2018 09:28:16 -0700
>
> > Juha-Matti Tilli reported that malicious peers could inject tiny
> > packets in out_of_order_queue, forcing very expensive calls
> > to tcp_collapse_ofo_queue() and tcp_prune_
From: Eric Dumazet
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2018 09:28:16 -0700
> Juha-Matti Tilli reported that malicious peers could inject tiny
> packets in out_of_order_queue, forcing very expensive calls
> to tcp_collapse_ofo_queue() and tcp_prune_ofo_queue() for
> every incoming packet.
>
> With tcp_rmem[2] defa
Juha-Matti Tilli reported that malicious peers could inject tiny
packets in out_of_order_queue, forcing very expensive calls
to tcp_collapse_ofo_queue() and tcp_prune_ofo_queue() for
every incoming packet.
With tcp_rmem[2] default of 6MB, the ooo queue could
contain ~7000 nodes.
This patch series
