netdev - Re: Resend: [PATCH] TCP Early Retransmit: reduce required dupacks for triggering fast retrans

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.0909231232050.13543@wel-95.cs.helsinki.fi>
Date:	Wed, 23 Sep 2009 12:58:15 +0300 (EEST)
From:	"Ilpo Järvinen" <ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi>
To:	Christian Samsel <Christian.Samsel@...h-aachen.de>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
cc:	Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Resend: [PATCH] TCP Early Retransmit: reduce required dupacks
 for triggering fast retrans

On Tue, 22 Sep 2009, Christian Samsel wrote:

> This patch implements draft-ietf-tcpm-early-rexmt. The early retransmit 
> mechanism allows the transport to reduce the number of duplicate
> acknowledgments required to trigger a fast retransmission in case we
> don't expect enough dupacks, (e.g. because there are not enough
> packets inflight and nothing to send). This allows the transport to use
> fast retransmit to recover packet losses that would otherwise require
> a lengthy retransmission timeout.
> 
> See: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tcpm-early-rexmt-01
> 
> Signed-off-by: Christian Samsel <christian.samsel@...h-aachen.de>
> 
> ---
>  net/ipv4/tcp_input.c |   16 ++++++++++++++++
>  1 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c b/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c
> index af6d6fa..c0cc4fd 100644
> --- a/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c
> +++ b/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c
> @@ -2913,6 +2913,7 @@ static void tcp_fastretrans_alert(struct sock *sk, int pkts_acked, int flag)
>   int do_lost = is_dupack || ((flag & FLAG_DATA_SACKED) &&
>                                      (tcp_fackets_out(tp) > tp->reordering));
>   int fast_rexmit = 0, mib_idx;
> + u32 in_flight;
>  
>   if (WARN_ON(!tp->packets_out && tp->sacked_out))
>           tp->sacked_out = 0;
> @@ -3062,6 +3063,21 @@ static void tcp_fastretrans_alert(struct sock *sk, int pkts_acked, int flag)
>   if (do_lost || (tcp_is_fack(tp) && tcp_head_timedout(sk)))
>           tcp_update_scoreboard(sk, fast_rexmit);
>   tcp_cwnd_down(sk, flag);
> +       
> +
> + /* draft-ietf-tcpm-early-rexmt: lowers dup ack threshold to prevent rto
> +         * in case we don't expect enough dup ack. if number of outstanding
> +         * packets is less than four and there is either no unsent data ready
> +         * for transmission or the advertised window does not permit new
> +         * segments.
> +         */
> + in_flight = tcp_packets_in_flight(tp);
> + if ( in_flight < 4 && (skb_queue_empty(&sk->sk_write_queue) ||
> +         tcp_may_send_now(sk) == 0) )
> +         tp->reordering = in_flight - 1;
> + else if (tp->reordering != sysctl_tcp_reordering)
> +         tp->reordering = sysctl_tcp_reordering;
> +
>   tcp_xmit_retransmit_queue(sk);
>  }

This is entirely flawed approach, I'd recommend you start from the 
scratch, almost nothing of this current one is worth keeping (expect 
parts of the comment). ...It will just not work for many cases, however, 
it's nice that you tried nevertheless.

First, the right place to change is in tcp_time_to_recover(). Another 
thing you need is to add a min() into tcp_update_scoreboard. Also, I don't 
think you should be touching tp->reordering at all to artificially lower 
the threshold for a period, just calculate the artificial value on the 
fly. And skb_queue_empty is not doing what you want, in fact I'm unsure 
what you want it to do in the first place? Instead of four, use 
tp->reordering. (I could have coded all that in couple of minutes, in fact 
in less than writing this mail but it's more useful that you go to those 
places, learn and code that instead :-)).

With all the cases that I know to not work with this _submitted_ version, 
I doubt that this is well tested, if any at all. ...I hope you're not 
submitting somebody elses work without understanding at all what the code 
does and what it doesn't...?

Also, before starting, please go through what is written in 
Documentation/CodingStyle.

-- 
 i.
--
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