netdev - Re: [PATCH 3/10] [TCP]: non-FACK SACK follows conservative SACK loss recovery

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, 15 Nov 2007 19:41:15 -0800 (PST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/10] [TCP]: non-FACK SACK follows conservative SACK
 loss recovery

From: "Ilpo_Järvinen" <ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 15:37:27 +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)
> - Sacktag's loss detection flavors B and C (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 these 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.
> - Dupthresh is not a constant one. Dynamical adjustments include
>   both holes and sacked segments (equal to what FACK has) due to
>   complexity involved in determining the number sacked blocks
>   between highest_sack and the reordered segment. Thus it's will
>   be an over-estimate.
> 
> Implementation note:
> 
> tcp_clean_rtx_queue doesn't need a lost_cnt tweak because head
> skb at that point cannot be SACKED_ACKED (nor would such
> situation last for long enough to cause problems).
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi>

Thanks a lot for doing this work, these changes look fine to
me.

It occurs to me that the loss engine basically runs in about
2 or 3 modes, and instead of making the same tests multiple
times through the ACK processing paths we might want to move
to some kind of 'tcp_loss_ops' scheme.

It is just an idea.

Patch applied to net-2.6.25, thanks!
-
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