linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH bpf-next] tcp: bpf: Add TCP_BPF_RCV_SSTHRESH for bpf

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:   Fri, 14 Jan 2022 14:20:50 -0800
From:   Ivan Babrou <ivan@...udflare.com>
To:     Dave Taht <dave.taht@...il.com>
Cc:     bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel-team <kernel-team@...udflare.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next] tcp: bpf: Add TCP_BPF_RCV_SSTHRESH for bpf_setsockopt

On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 9:44 PM Dave Taht <dave.taht@...il.com> wrote:
> Yes, but with the caveats below. I'm fine with you just saying round trips,
> and making this api possible.
>
> It would comfort me further if you could provide an actual scenario.

The actual scenario is getting a response as quickly as possible on a
fresh connection across long distances (200ms+ RTT). If an RPC
response doesn't fit into the initial 64k of rcv_ssthresh, we end up
requiring more roundrips to receive the response. Some customers are
very picky about the latency they measure and cutting the extra
roundtrips made a very visible difference in the tests.

> See also:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6928
>
> which predates packet pacing (are you using sch_fq?)

We are using fq and bbr.

> > Congestion window is a learned property, not a static number. You
> > won't get a large initcwnd towards a poor connection.
>
> initcwnd is set globally or on a per route basis.

With TCP_BPF_IW the world is your oyster.