netdev - Re: [RFC PATCHv5 5/5] [TCP]: non-FACK SACK follows conservative SACK loss recovery (RFC3517)

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-Id: <20070324.211307.59653456.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Sat, 24 Mar 2007 21:13:07 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCHv5 5/5] [TCP]: non-FACK SACK follows conservative
 SACK loss recovery (RFC3517)

From: "Ilpo_Järvinen" <ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 20:41:06 +0200

> Many assumptions that are true when no reordering or other
> strange events happen are not a part of the RFC3517. FACK
> implementation is based on such assumptions. Previously (before
> the rewrite) the non-FACK SACK was basically doing fast rexmit
> and then it times out all skbs when first cumulative ACK arrives,
> which cannot really be called SACK based recovery :-).
> 
> RFC3517 SACK disables these things:
> - Per SKB timeouts & head timeout entry to recovery
> - Marking at least one skb while in recovery (RFC3517 does this
>   only for the fast retransmission but not for the other skbs
>   when cumulative ACKs arrive in the recovery)
> - B & C flavors of loss detection (see comment before
>   tcp_sacktag_write_queue)
> 
> This does not implement the "last resort" rule 3 of NextSeg, which
> allows retransmissions also when not enough SACK blocks have yet
> arrived above a segment for IsLost to return true [RFC3517].
> 
> The implementation differs from RFC3517 in two points:
> - Rate-halving is used instead of FlightSize / 2
> - Instead of using dupACKs to trigger the recovery, the number
>   of SACK blocks is used as FACK does with SACK blocks+holes
>   (which provides more accurate number). It seems that the
>   difference can affect negatively only if the receiver does not
>   generate SACK blocks at all even though it claimed to be
>   SACK-capable.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi>

I'm OK with this one too, applied, thanks a lot!
-
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