netdev - Re: [PATCH] tcp: Socket option to set congestion window

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 27 May 2010 01:15:12 +0200
From:	Hagen Paul Pfeifer <hagen@...u.net>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	andi@...stfloor.org, therbert@...gle.com, shemminger@...tta.com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, ycheng@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tcp: Socket option to set congestion window

* David Miller | 2010-05-26 15:10:14 [-0700]:

>From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
>Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 23:27:45 +0200
>
>> As I understand the idea was that the application knows
>> what flows belong to a single peer and wants to have
>> a single cwnd for all of those. Perhaps there would
>> be a way to generalize that to tell it to the kernel.
>> 
>> e.g. have a "peer id"  that is known by applications
>> and the kernel could manage cwnds shared between connections
>> associated with the same peer id?
>> 
>> Just an idea, I admit I haven't thought very deeply
>> about this. Feel free to poke holes into it.
>
>Yes, a CWND "domain" that can include multiple sockets is
>something that might gain some traction.
>
>The "domain" could just simply be the tuple {process,peer-IP}

This discussion - as once a month - is about fairness. But if we define a
domain as a tuple of {process,peer-IP} the fairness is applied only for the
last link before "peer-IP".

But fairness applies to *all* links in between! For example: consider a
dumpbell scenario:


+------+                                   +------+ 
|      |                                   |      |  
|  H1  |                                   |  H3  | 
|      |                                   |      |  
+------+                                   +------+  
  10MB  \   +------+            +------+  / 10MB
         \  |      |   1MB/s    |      | / 
          > |  R1  |------------|  R2  |<    
         /  |      |            |      | \      
  10MB  /   +------+            +------+  \ 10MB 
+------+                                   +------+  
|      |                                   |      |        
|  H2  |                                   |  H4  | 
|      |                                   |      | 
+------+                                   +------+


How can a domain defined as {process,peer-IP} fair to the 1MB bottleneck link?
It is not fair! And it is also not fair to open n simultaneous streams and so
on. This problem is discussed in several RFC's.

.02


Best regards, Hagen


-- 
Hagen Paul Pfeifer <hagen@...u.net>  ||  http://jauu.net/
Telephone: +49 174 5455209           ||  Key Id: 0x98350C22
Key Fingerprint: 490F 557B 6C48 6D7E 5706 2EA2 4A22 8D45 9835 0C22

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html