Message-ID: <5080340F.3050207@oracle.com>
Date:	Thu, 18 Oct 2012 11:53:35 -0500
From:	Venkat Venkatsubra <venkat.x.venkatsubra@...cle.com>
To:	enh <enh@...gle.com>
CC:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: listen(2) backlog changes in or around Linux 3.1?

Correction. I don't see the client side receiving any abort/termination 
notification.
They all remain on ESTABLISHED state on the client side.
In tcpdump I don't see a FIN or RST coming from the server for the 
aborted connections.

Venkat

On 10/18/2012 11:00 AM, Venkat Venkatsubra wrote:
> Hi Elliott,
>
> I see the same behavior with your test program.
> The connect() keeps succeeding even though accept() is not performed.
> It pauses after 4 connections for a while and then periodically keeps 
> adding few (2 I think).
>
> But the server side end points are terminated too. You will see only 
> the first 2 sessions on the server side.
> If you modify your test program to say read or poll the sockets you 
> should get a termination notification on them I think .
>
> The behavior overall looks fine in my opinion.  But it could be a 
> change of behavior for your test program.
>
> Venkat
>
> On 10/16/2012 6:31 PM, enh wrote:
>> boiling things down to a short C++ program, i see that i can reproduce
>> the behavior even on 2.6 kernels. if i run this, i see 4 connections
>> immediately (3 + 1, as i'd expect)... but then about 10s later i see
>> another 2. and every few seconds after that, i see another 2. i've let
>> this run until i have hundreds of connect(2) calls that have returned,
>> despite my small listen(2) backlog and the fact that i'm not
>> accept(2)ing.
>>
>> so i guess the only thing that's changed with newer kernels is timing
>> (hell, since i only see newer kernels on newer hardware, it might just
>> be a hardware thing).
>>
>> and clearly i don't understand what the listen(2) backlog means any 
>> more.
>>
>> #include<netinet/ip.h>
>> #include<netinet/tcp.h>
>> #include<sys/types.h>
>> #include<sys/socket.h>
>> #include<iostream>
>> #include<stdlib.h>
>> #include<string.h>
>> #include<errno.h>
>>
>> void dump_ti(int fd) {
>>   tcp_info ti;
>>   socklen_t tcp_info_length = sizeof(tcp_info);
>>   int rc = getsockopt(fd, SOL_IP, TCP_INFO,&ti,&tcp_info_length);
>>   if (rc == -1) {
>>     std::cout<<  "getsockopt rc "<<  rc<<  ": "<<  strerror(errno)<<  
>> "\n";
>>     return;
>>   }
>>
>>   std::cout<<  "ti.tcpi_unacked="<<  ti.tcpi_unacked<<  "\n";
>>   std::cout<<  "ti.tcpi_sacked="<<  ti.tcpi_sacked<<  "\n";
>> }
>>
>> void connect_to(sockaddr_in&  sa) {
>>   int s = socket(AF_INET, SOCK_STREAM, 0);
>>   if (s == -1) {
>>     abort();
>>   }
>>
>>   int rc = connect(s, (sockaddr*)&sa, sizeof(sockaddr_in));
>>   std::cout<<  "connect = "<<  rc<<  "\n";
>> }
>>
>> int main() {
>>   int ss = socket(AF_INET, SOCK_STREAM, 0);
>>   std::cout<<  "socket fd "<<  ss<<  "\n";
>>
>>   sockaddr_in sa;
>>   memset(&sa, 0, sizeof(sa));
>>   sa.sin_family = AF_INET;
>>   sa.sin_addr.s_addr = htonl(INADDR_ANY);
>>   sa.sin_port = htons(9877);
>>   int rc = bind(ss, (sockaddr*)&sa, sizeof(sa));
>>   std::cout<<  "bind rc "<<  rc<<  ": "<<  strerror(errno)<<  "\n";
>>   std::cout<<  "bind port "<<  sa.sin_port<<  "\n";
>>
>>   rc = listen(ss, 1);
>>   std::cout<<  "listen rc "<<  rc<<  ": "<<  strerror(errno)<<  "\n";
>>   dump_ti(ss);
>>
>>   while (true) {
>>    connect_to(sa);
>>    dump_ti(ss);
>>   }
>>
>>   return 0;
>> }
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 10:26 AM, enh<enh@...gle.com>  wrote:
>>> On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 10:12 AM, Venkat Venkatsubra
>>> <venkat.x.venkatsubra@...cle.com>  wrote:
>>>> On 10/12/2012 6:40 PM, enh wrote:
>>>>> i used to use the following hack to unit test connect timeouts: i'd
>>>>> call listen(2) on a socket and then deliberately connect (backlog 
>>>>> + 3)
>>>>> sockets without accept(2)ing any of the connections. (why 3? because
>>>>> Stevens told me so, and experiment backed him up. see figure 4.10 in
>>>>> his UNIX Network Programming.)
>>>>>
>>>>> with "old" kernels, 2.6.35-ish to 3.0-ish, this worked great. my next
>>>>> connect(2) to the same loopback port would hang indefinitely. i could
>>>>> even unblock the connect by calling accept(2) in another thread. this
>>>>> was awesome for testing.
>>>>>
>>>>> in 3.1 on ARM, 3.2 on x86 (Ubuntu desktop), and 3.4 on ARM, this no
>>>>> longer works. it doesn't seem to be as simple as "the constant is no
>>>>> longer 3". my tests are now flaky. sometimes they work like they used
>>>>> to, and sometimes an extra connect(2) will succeed. (or, if i'm in
>>>>> non-blocking mode, my poll(2) will return with the non-blocking 
>>>>> socket
>>>>> that's trying to connect now ready.)
>>>>>
>>>>> i'm guessing if this changed in 3.1 and is still changed in 3.4,
>>>>> whatever's changed wasn't an accident. but i haven't been able to 
>>>>> find
>>>>> the right search terms to RTFM. i also finally got around to grepping
>>>>> the kernel for the "+ 3", but wasn't able to find that. (so i'd be
>>>>> interested to know where the old behavior came from too.)
>>>>>
>>>>> my least worst workaround at the moment is to use one of RFC5737's
>>>>> test networks, but that requires that the device have a network
>>>>> connection, otherwise my connect(2)s fail immediately with
>>>>> ENETUNREACH, which is no use to me. also, unlike my old trick, i've
>>>>> got no way to suddenly "unblock" a slow connect(2) (this is useful 
>>>>> for
>>>>> unit testing the code that does the poll(2) part of the usual
>>>>> connect-with-timeout implementation).
>>>>> https://android-review.googlesource.com/#/c/44563/
>>>>>
>>>>> hopefully someone here can shed some light on this? ideally someone
>>>>> will have a workaround as good as my old trick. i realize i was
>>>>> relying on undocumented behavior, and i'm happy to have to check
>>>>> /proc/version and behave appropriately, but i'd really like a way to
>>>>> keep my unit tests!
>>>>>
>>>>> thanks,
>>>>>    elliott
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> 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
>>>> Hi Elliott,
>>>>
>>>> In BSD I think the backlog used to be reset to 3/2 times that 
>>>> passed by the
>>>> user. So, 2 becomes 3.
>>>> Probably the 1/2 times increase was to accommodate the ones in
>>>> partial/incomplete queue.
>>>> In Linux is it possible you were getting the same behavior before 
>>>> the below
>>>> commit ?
>>>> Since the check used to be "backlog+1" a 2 will behave as 3 ?
>>> i don't think so, because with<= 3.0 kernels i used to have a backlog
>>> of 1 and be able to make _4_ connections before my next connect would
>>> hang. but this>  to>= change is at least something for me to
>>> investigate...
>>>
>>>> commit 8488df894d05d6fa41c2bd298c335f944bb0e401
>>>> Author: Wei Dong<weid@...css.fujitsu.com>
>>>> Date:   Fri Mar 2 12:37:26 2007 -0800
>>>>
>>>>      [NET]: Fix bugs in "Whether sock accept queue is full" checking
>>>>
>>>>          when I use linux TCP socket, and find there is a bug in 
>>>> function
>>>> sk_acceptq_is_full().
>>>>
>>>>          When a new SYN comes, TCP module first checks its 
>>>> validation. If
>>>> valid,
>>>>      send SYN,ACK to the client and add the sock to the syn hash 
>>>> table. Next
>>>>      time if received the valid ACK for SYN,ACK from the client. 
>>>> server will
>>>>      accept this connection and increase the sk->sk_ack_backlog -- 
>>>> which is
>>>>      done in function tcp_check_req().We check wether acceptq is 
>>>> full in
>>>>      function tcp_v4_syn_recv_sock().
>>>>
>>>>      Consider an example:
>>>>
>>>>       After listen(sockfd, 1) system call, sk->sk_max_ack_backlog 
>>>> is set to
>>>>      1. As we know, sk->sk_ack_backlog is initialized to 0. 
>>>> Assuming accept()
>>>>      system call is not invoked now.
>>>>
>>>>      1. 1st connection comes. invoke sk_acceptq_is_full().
>>>>       sk->sk_ack_backlog=0 sk->sk_max_ack_backlog=1, function 
>>>> return 0 accept
>>>> this connection.
>>>>       Increase the sk->sk_ack_backlog
>>>>      2. 2nd connection comes. invoke sk_acceptq_is_full().
>>>>       sk->sk_ack_backlog=1 sk->sk_max_ack_backlog=1, function 
>>>> return 0 accept
>>>> this connection.
>>>>       Increase the sk->sk_ack_backlog
>>>>      3. 3rd connection comes. invoke sk_acceptq_is_full().
>>>>       sk->sk_ack_backlog=2 sk->sk_max_ack_backlog=1, function 
>>>> return 1.
>>>> Refuse this connection.
>>>>
>>>>      I think it has bugs. after listen system call. 
>>>> sk->sk_max_ack_backlog=1
>>>>      but now it can accept 2 connections.
>>>>
>>>>      Signed-off-by: Wei Dong<weid@...css.fujitsu.com>
>>>>      Signed-off-by: David S. Miller<davem@...emloft.net>
>>>>
>>>> Venkat
>> -- 
>> 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
>
> -- 
> 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

--
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