netdev - Re: TCP and reordering

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1354089566.21562.20.camel@shinybook.infradead.org>
Date:	Wed, 28 Nov 2012 07:59:26 +0000
From:	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	saku@...i.fi, rick.jones2@...com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: TCP and reordering

On Tue, 2012-11-27 at 21:06 -0500, David Miller wrote:
> And the gains of fast retransmit far outweigh whatever strange
> justification would give for reordering packets on purpose.

My 'strange justification' for reordering, albeit not entirely on
purpose, is that a single ADSL line at 8Mb/s down, 448Kb/s up is less
bandwidth than I had to my dorm room 16 years ago. So I bond two of
them, and naturally expect a certain amount of reordering.

I've never really done much analysis of this though, and it's never
seemed to be a problem. Then again, I don't think I get *much*
reordering. Big downloads tend to look fairly much like this:

07:36:02.272979 IP6 2001:770:15f::2.http > 2001:8b0:10b:1:e6ce:8fff:fe1f:f2c0.52530: Flags [.], seq 67016473:67017881, ack 124, win 110, options [nop,nop,TS val 2564943119 ecr 1096912240], length 1408
07:36:02.273478 IP6 2001:770:15f::2.http > 2001:8b0:10b:1:e6ce:8fff:fe1f:f2c0.52530: Flags [.], seq 67017881:67019289, ack 124, win 110, options [nop,nop,TS val 2564943119 ecr 1096912240], length 1408
07:36:02.273507 IP6 2001:8b0:10b:1:e6ce:8fff:fe1f:f2c0.52530 > 2001:770:15f::2.http: Flags [.], ack 67019289, win 11198, options [nop,nop,TS val 1096912356 ecr 2564943119], length 0
07:36:02.274727 IP6 2001:770:15f::2.http > 2001:8b0:10b:1:e6ce:8fff:fe1f:f2c0.52530: Flags [.], seq 67019289:67020697, ack 124, win 110, options [nop,nop,TS val 2564943119 ecr 1096912241], length 1408
07:36:02.275151 IP6 2001:770:15f::2.http > 2001:8b0:10b:1:e6ce:8fff:fe1f:f2c0.52530: Flags [.], seq 67020697:67022105, ack 124, win 110, options [nop,nop,TS val 2564943119 ecr 1096912241], length 1408
07:36:02.275184 IP6 2001:8b0:10b:1:e6ce:8fff:fe1f:f2c0.52530 > 2001:770:15f::2.http: Flags [.], ack 67022105, win 11198, options [nop,nop,TS val 1096912358 ecr 2564943119], length 0

I suppose it might be worse if the lines weren't running at the same
speed, and if the packets weren't running over the same path through the
telco between the ISP's LNS (which alternates one packet per line) and
my local DSLAM.

Short of going through whole dumps and looking, is there a good way to
get statistics?

-- 
dwmw2

Download attachment "smime.p7s" of type "application/x-pkcs7-signature" (6171 bytes)