netdev - Re: [BUG] tcp : how many times a frame can possibly be retransmitted ?

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: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1108251150050.12780@wel-95.cs.helsinki.fi>
Date:	Thu, 25 Aug 2011 11:56:58 +0300 (EEST)
From:	"Ilpo Järvinen" <ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
cc:	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Jerry Chu <hkchu@...gle.com>,
	Damian Lukowski <damian@....rwth-aachen.de>
Subject: Re: [BUG] tcp : how many times a frame can possibly be retransmitted
 ?

On Thu, 25 Aug 2011, Eric Dumazet wrote:

> Le jeudi 25 août 2011 à 01:44 +0300, Ilpo Järvinen a écrit :
> > On Wed, 24 Aug 2011, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > 
> > > On one dev machine running net-next, I just found strange tcp sessions
> > > that retransmit a frame forever (The other peer disappeared)
> > > 
> > > # ss -emoi dst 10.2.1.1
> > > State      Recv-Q Send-Q      Local Address:Port          Peer Address:Port   
> > > ESTAB      0      816              10.2.1.2:37930             10.2.1.1:ssh      timer:(on,630ms,246) ino:60786 sk:ffff8801189aa400
> > > 	 mem:(r0,w3776,f320,t0) ts sack ecn cubic wscale:8,6 rto:1680 rtt:16.25/7.5 ato:40 ssthresh:7 send 1.4Mbps rcv_rtt:10 rcv_space:16632
> > > 
> > > 
> > > You can see the retransmit count : 246 
> > > 
> > > What possibly can be going on ?
> > > 
> > > What happened to backoff ?
> > 
> > But RTO (even without any backoffs) should be lower bounded to some not so 
> > zeroish value?
> 
> Apparently not.
> 
> The only thing that protect us from a flood is that ip_error() uses
> inetpeer cache to ratelimit the icmp_send(ICMP_DEST_UNREACH)
> 
> This is why we get retransmit period >= 1 sec
>
> vi +432 net/ipv4/tcp_ipv4.c
> 
>                 icsk->icsk_backoff--;
>                 inet_csk(sk)->icsk_rto = (tp->srtt ? __tcp_set_rto(tp) :
>                         TCP_TIMEOUT_INIT) << icsk->icsk_backoff;
>                 tcp_bound_rto(sk);
> 
> and __tcp_set_rto() uses : return (tp->srtt >> 3) + tp->rttvar;

So you think that this is not true: ?

        /* NOTE: clamping at TCP_RTO_MIN is not required, current algo
         * guarantees that rto is higher.
         */

...it would still be smaller than 1sec though, but certainly not going to 
cause flooding either. Default tcp_rto_min should be 200ms so it's 
5pkts+5ICMP sent, received and processed per second. Which doesn't sound 
that bad CPU load?!?

It is unclear to me how tp->rttvar could become smaller than 
tcp_rto_min().

-- 
 i.