On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 06:47:42AM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Mon, 2017-03-20 at 16:27 -0300, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote: > > This warning is a hint, and can not assume senders are not dumb. > > > > Agreed. But we can make it consider such cases. What about the following > > patch? (untested) > > > > I think we can directly account for the size of the timestamps in there, > > as that won't make a difference to congestion control in case it's > > wrong, and also validate against MTU if we have it. I didn't subtract > > the headers from MTU on purpose, as dealing with ipv4/ipv6 there is > > not worth for the same reason. > > > > This should silent this false-positive. > > > Note that the problem could have its origin on a middle box, > not on the host terminating the TCP flow. > > So we can try hard, but we can't eliminate false positives.
Agreed both. > > Maybe replace the 12 by MAX_TCP_OPTION_SPACE ? Yes, can be. Thanks. Marcelo
