netdev - Re: [PATCH 2.6.22-rc5] TCP: Make TCP_RTO

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]

Message-ID: <20070625152818.0d70477a@freepuppy.localdomain.hemminger.net>
Date:	Mon, 25 Jun 2007 15:28:18 -0700
From:	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	"Ian McDonald" <ian.mcdonald@...di.co.nz>
Cc:	"OBATA Noboru" <noboru.obata.ar@...achi.com>,
	"David Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6.22-rc5] TCP: Make TCP_RTO_MAX a variable

On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 10:18:46 +1200
"Ian McDonald" <ian.mcdonald@...di.co.nz> wrote:

> On 6/26/07, OBATA Noboru <noboru.obata.ar@...achi.com> wrote:
> > From: OBATA Noboru <noboru.obata.ar@...achi.com>
> >
> > Make TCP_RTO_MAX a variable, and allow a user to change it via a
> > new sysctl entry /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_rto_max.  A user can
> > then guarantee TCP retransmission to be more controllable, say,
> > at least once per 10 seconds, by setting it to 10.  This is
> > quite helpful on failover-capable network devices, such as an
> > active-backup bonding device.  On such devices, it is desirable
> > that TCP retransmits a packet shortly after the failover, which
> > is what I would like to do with this patch.  Please see
> > Background and Problem below for rationale in detail.
> >
> RFC2988 says this:
>    (2.4) Whenever RTO is computed, if it is less than 1 second then the
>          RTO SHOULD be rounded up to 1 second.
> 
>          Traditionally, TCP implementations use coarse grain clocks to
>          measure the RTT and trigger the RTO, which imposes a large
>          minimum value on the RTO.  Research suggests that a large
>          minimum RTO is needed to keep TCP conservative and avoid
>          spurious retransmissions [AP99].  Therefore, this
>          specification requires a large minimum RTO as a conservative
>          approach, while at the same time acknowledging that at some
>          future point, research may show that a smaller minimum RTO is
>          acceptable or superior.
> 
>    (2.5) A maximum value MAY be placed on RTO provided it is at least 60
>          seconds.
> 
> Your code doesn't seem to meet requirements of section 2.5 as your
> minimum is 1 second.
> 
> I think if you're trying to solve the bonding issue then you should
> solve that issue, not hack the TCP implementation as that opens it up
> to abuse in other ways.
> 
> Ian

Another alternative is to provide a way to force all connections to retransmit
"right away" by adding a notifier mechanism.

-- 
Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org>
-
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