netdev - Re: [PATCH net] Revert "net: sctp: Fix a_rwnd/rwnd management to reflect real state of the receiver's buffer"

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:	Wed, 16 Apr 2014 21:24:15 +0200
From:	Matija Glavinic Pecotic <matija.glavinic-pecotic.ext@....com>
To:	ext Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com>
CC:	Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@...il.com>,
	Alexander Sverdlin <alexander.sverdlin@....com>,
	ext Dongsheng Song <dongsheng.song@...il.com>,
	davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	"linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org" <linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] Revert "net: sctp: Fix a_rwnd/rwnd management to
 reflect real state of the receiver's buffer"

On 04/16/2014 09:05 PM, ext Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> On 04/16/2014 08:50 PM, Vlad Yasevich wrote:
>> On 04/16/2014 05:02 AM, Alexander Sverdlin wrote:
>>> Hi Dongsheng!
>>>
>>> On 16/04/14 10:39, ext Dongsheng Song wrote:
>>>> >From my testing, netperf throughput from 600 Mbit/s drop to 6 Mbit/s,
>>>> the penalty is 99 %.
>>>
>>> The question was, do you see this as a problem of the new rwnd algorithm?
>>> If yes, how exactly?
> 
> [ Default config ./test_timetolive from lksctp-test suite triggered
>   that as well actually it appears, i.e. showing that the app never
>   woke up from the 3 sec timeout. ]

We had a different case there. Test wasnt hanging due to decreased performance, but due to fact that with the patch sender created very large message, as opposed to situation before the patch where test message was of much smaller size.

http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-sctp/msg03185.html

>> The algorithm isn't wrong, but the implementation appears to have
>> a bug with window update SACKs.  The problem is that
>> sk->sk_rmem_alloc is updated by the skb destructor when
>> skb is freed.  This happens after we call sctp_assoc_rwnd_update()
>> which tries to send the update SACK.  As a result, in default
>> config with per-socket accounting, the test
>>      if ((asoc->base.sk->sk_rcvbuf - rx_count) > 0)
>> uses the wrong values for rx_count and results in advertisement
>> of decreased rwnd instead of what is really available.
--
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