From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Oct 1 22:37:21 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA04638 for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 22:37:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from time.cdrom.com (time.cdrom.com [204.216.27.226]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA04621; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 22:37:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from time.cdrom.com (localhost.cdrom.com [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.8.7/8.6.9) with ESMTP id WAA04596; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 22:36:20 -0700 (PDT) To: Terry Lambert cc: pst@juniper.net, dg@root.com, Don.Lewis@tsc.tdk.com, richard@a42.deep-thought.org, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeBSD TCP stack and RST processing [subj changed] In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 02 Oct 1997 01:19:37 -0000." <199710020119.SAA02029@usr04.primenet.com> Date: Wed, 01 Oct 1997 22:36:19 -0700 Message-ID: <4592.875770579@time.cdrom.com> From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > Well, since it certainly seems to cause deviation from expected > > behavior and none of the other *BSDs have picked it up, shall we > > simply rip it out? > > I think the "ignore H_ACK for the compare" suggestion is best. If we > ripped out everything that the other BSD's didn't agree was BSD, then > you'd lose things like, oh, the new VM code. And so on. Not a strong > justifiable argument, IMO. No, but it's also not my argument. I merely cited it as a data point, any comparison between the VM system and a relatively syn-flood fix being definite apples-and-oranges material anyway. The other *BSDs generally do track one another's DoS and general security fixes unless there's a clear reason to avoid something. The VM system is not in this category, it's merely too hard to track in a multi-architecture environment (not for want of trying on the part of various folks in NetBSD, at least). Jordan