[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5391F14F.7030800@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2014 12:50:23 -0400
From: Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@...il.com>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: SCTP seems to lose its socket state.
On 06/06/2014 11:14 AM, David Laight wrote:
> From: David Laight
>> I've been looking at an ethernet trace from one of our customers.
>> They seem to have got an SCTP socket into a rather confused state.
>>
>> There seem to be a significant number of transmit ethernet frames
>> that don't read the far end.
>> This shouldn't cause a real problem, but we end up with the following:
>> This trace was taken on the linux system:
>>
>> 39964 0.304473 -> SCTP INIT
>> 39965 0.292669 <- SCTP INIT (I think this has an invalid checksum)
>> 39968 0.467935 <- SCTP INIT
>> 39969 0.000093 -> SCTP INIT_ACK
>> 39970 0.003947 <- SCTP COOKIE_ECHO
>> 39971 0.000072 -> SCTP COOKIE_ACK
>> 39972 0.000337 -> M3UA ASPUP
>> 39979 0.809659 <- SCTP COOKIE_ECHO
>> 39980 0.000058 -> SCTP COOKIE_ACK
>> shutdown() called here - seems to be ignored
>> 39983 0.949471 <- SCTP COOKIE_ECHO
>> 39984 0.000053 -> SCTP COOKIE_ACK
>> 39986 0.730072 -> M3UA ASPUP Same TSN as above
>> 40002 0.270589 -> M3UA ASPUP Same TSN as above
>> 40008 3.689088 <- SCTP HEARTBEAT
>> 40009 0.000027 -> SCTP HEARTBEAT_ACK
>> 40014 0.261152 <- SCTP HEARTBEAT
>> 40015 0.000033 -> SCTP HEARTBEAT_ACK
>> 40026 0.123048 <- SCTP HEARTBEAT
>> 40027 0.000030 -> SCTP HEARTBEAT_ACK
>> 40036 1.615048 -> M3UA ASPUP Same TSN as above
>>
>> There are no signs of any SACKs for the ASPUP, I think they have the
>> correct TSN (the same value as in the INIT_ACK).
>> No signs of any shutdowns or aborts from either system.
>>
>> As seems to be typical for M3UA the source and destination ports are
>> the same. No additional IP addresses appear in the INIT (etc) messages.
>
> I think I've reproduced this on a 3.14.0 kernel.
>
> System A: Bind to port 1234, connect to B:1234.
> If the connect fails, retry 10 seconds later.
> When the connection completes send some data.
> Disconnect if the reflected data isn't received within 2 seconds.
> System B: Bind to port 1234, connect to A:1234.
> If the connect fails, retry 10 seconds later.
> Reflect any received data.
>
> Initially the INIT chunks generate ABORTs (no listener) so both
> programs just retry every 10 seconds.
>
Interesting... I bet that if you drop the retry interval, or even
maybe remove it completely, you might get a connection faster.
You'll end up in the unexpected INIT cases, where the two ends are
trying to establish an association at the same time.
> On B run:
> iptables -A INPUT -p sctp --chunk-types any INIT -j DROP
> iptables -A INPUT -p sctp --chunk-types any DATA -j DROP
> The first allows the connection to complete.
> The second stops B acking the data.
> The data is resent on timeout, and the systems exchange HBs.
>
Ok, that makes sense.
> I'd expect that a SHUTDOWN or ABORT be sent reasonably quickly.
Whey do expect that? Since you drop the data at B, it is never
reflected back to A. As such, A will continue retransmitting.
When you disconnect on A, you have unacknowledged data, so the
system will go into SHUTDOWN_PENDING state tying to get the remote
to ack the data and continue sending HB. Which is I think what
you are observing.
> But the systems just exchange HBs for over 5 minutes.
> (I'm seeing an ABORT because B gives up waiting for the message.)
I think you might be seeing a shutdown_guard timer firing on A.
It defaults to 5 * rto_max and default rto_max is 1 min.
Tweak rto_max lower and you should see the ABORT faster.
I think for the above scenario applications, I'd recommend setting
SO_LINGER to on so that when A disconnects, it sends an ABORT
instead of waiting for unacked data to finish.
-vlad
>
> If I discard the COOKIE_ECHO then I do see an outwards disconnect
> after a few retries.
>
> I'm testing with sockets created by our M3UA kernel driver,
> and system B is running a much older kernel (2.6.26).
> Neither should make any difference.
>
> David
>
>
>
> --
> 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