netdev - Re: [PATCH net-2.6 0/3]: Three TCP fixes

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:	Tue, 04 Dec 2007 16:17:29 -0500
From:	John Heffner <jheffner@....edu>
To:	Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi>
CC:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Matt Mathis <mathis@....edu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-2.6 0/3]: Three TCP fixes

Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Dec 2007, John Heffner wrote:
> 
>> Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
>>> ...I'm still to figure out why tcp_cwnd_down uses snd_ssthresh/2
>>> as lower bound even though the ssthresh was already halved, so snd_ssthresh
>>> should suffice.
>> I remember this coming up at least once before, so it's probably worth a
>> comment in the code.  Rate-halving attempts to actually reduce cwnd to half
>> the delivered window.  Here, cwnd/4 (ssthresh/2) is a lower bound on how far
>> rate-halving can reduce cwnd.  See the "Bounding Parameters" section of
>> <http://www.psc.edu/networking/papers/FACKnotes/current/>.
> 
> Thanks for the info! Sadly enough it makes NewReno recovery quite 
> inefficient when there are enough losses and high BDP link (in my case 
> 384k/200ms, BDP sized buffer). There might be yet another bug in it as 
> well (it is still a bit unclear how tcp variables behaved during my 
> scenario and I'll investigate further) but reduction in the transfer 
> rate is going to last longer than a short moment (which is used as 
> motivation in those FACK notes). In fact, if I just use RFC2581 like 
> setting w/o rate-halving (and experience the initial "pause" in sending), 
> the ACK clock to send out new data works very nicely beating rate halving 
> fair and square. For SACK/FACK it works much nicer because recovery is 
> finished much earlier and slow start recovers cwnd quickly.

I believe this is exactly the reason why Matt (CC'd) and Jamshid 
abandoned this line of work in the late 90's.  In my opinion, it's 
probably not such a bad idea to use cwnd/2 as the bound.  In some 
situations, the current rate-halving code will work better, but as you 
point out, in others the cwnd is lowered too much.


> ...Mind if I ask another similar one, any idea why prior_ssthresh is 
> smaller (3/4 of it) than cwnd used to be (see tcp_current_ssthresh)?

Not sure on that one.  I'm not aware of any publications this is based 
on.  Maybe Alexey knows?

   -John
--
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