Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 12 Jun 2005 20:14:25 +0200 | From | Willy Tarreau <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] fix small DoS on connect() (was Re: BUG: Unusual TCP Connect() results.) |
| |
On Sun, Jun 12, 2005 at 08:47:07PM +0300, Denis Vlasenko wrote: > On Sunday 12 June 2005 20:36, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 12, 2005 at 08:10:33PM +0300, Denis Vlasenko wrote: > > > > Does it seem appropriate for mainline ? In this case, I would also backport > > > > it to 2.4 and send it to you for inclusion. > > > > > > It does not contain a comment why it is configurable. > > > > You're right. Better with this ? > > Very nice. BTW, is there any real world applications which > ever used this?
Not that I'm aware of, but that does not mean they don't exist. Until yesterday, I even thought that it was never implemented. As most other systems don't implement it, the applications, if they exist, are Linux or BSD-dependant. It's even difficult to use because the two ends must loop around the connect() call until it succeeds, because as long as they're not both trying to connect, they get RSTs back.
> > + If you want backwards compatibility with every possible application, > > + you should set it to 1. If you prefer to enhance security on your > > + systems at the risk of breaking very rare specific applications, you'd > > + better let it to 0. > > + Default: 0 > > This text leaves an impression that they exist.
In doubt, I consider that they might exist. It's just like martians :-)
Willy
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |