[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <m2bol6lqxo.fsf@firstfloor.org>
Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 12:37:07 -0700
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <jbrouer@...hat.com>
Cc: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Christoph Paasch <christoph.paasch@...ouvain.be>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Martin Topholm <mph@...h.dk>, Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>,
opurdila@...acom.com,
Hans Schillstrom <hans.schillstrom@...csson.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] tcp: Early SYN limit and SYN cookie handling to mitigate SYN floods
Jesper Dangaard Brouer <jbrouer@...hat.com> writes:
> TCP SYN handling is on the slow path via tcp_v4_rcv(), and is
> performed while holding spinlock bh_lock_sock().
>
> Real-life and testlab experiments show, that the kernel choks
> when reaching 130Kpps SYN floods (powerful Nehalem 16 cores).
> Measuring with perf reveals, that its caused by
> bh_lock_sock_nested() call in tcp_v4_rcv().
>
> With this patch, the machine can handle 750Kpps (max of the SYN
> flood generator) with cycles to spare, CPU load on the big machine
> dropped to 1%, from 100%.
>
> Notice we only handle syn cookie early on, normal SYN packets
> are still processed under the bh_lock_sock().
So basically handling syncookie lockless?
Makes sense. Syncookies is a bit obsolete these days of course, due
to the lack of options. But may be still useful for this.
Obviously you'll need to clean up the patch and support IPv6,
but the basic idea looks good to me.
-Andi
--
ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only
--
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists