netdev - Re: [PATCH] tcp: fixing TLP's FIN recovery

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]

Date:	Sun, 08 Jun 2014 09:35:01 -0700
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	Per Hurtig <per.hurtig@....se>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, anna.brunstrom@....se,
	mohammad.rajiullah@....se, ncardwell@...gle.com,
	nanditad@...gle.com, sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tcp: fixing TLP's FIN recovery

On Sun, 2014-06-08 at 09:41 +0200, Per Hurtig wrote:
> 
> On sön  8 jun 2014 04:58:25, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > On Sat, 2014-06-07 at 16:34 +0200, Per Hurtig wrote:
> >> Fix to a problem observed when losing a FIN segment that does not
> >> contain data.  In such situations, TLP is unable to recover from
> >> *any* tail loss and instead adds at least PTO ms to the
> >> retransmission process, i.e., RTO = RTO + PTO.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Per Hurtig <per.hurtig@....se>
> >> ---
> >>   net/ipv4/tcp_output.c | 6 ++++--
> >>   1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/net/ipv4/tcp_output.c b/net/ipv4/tcp_output.c
> >> index d463c35..6573765 100644
> >> --- a/net/ipv4/tcp_output.c
> >> +++ b/net/ipv4/tcp_output.c
> >> @@ -2130,8 +2130,10 @@ void tcp_send_loss_probe(struct sock *sk)
> >>   	if (WARN_ON(!skb || !tcp_skb_pcount(skb)))
> >>   		goto rearm_timer;
> >>
> >> -	/* Probe with zero data doesn't trigger fast recovery. */
> >> -	if (skb->len > 0)
> >> +	/* Probe with zero data doesn't trigger fast recovery, if FIN
> >> +	 * flag is not set.
> >> +	 */
> >> +	if ((skb->len > 0) || (TCP_SKB_CB(skb)->tcp_flags & TCPHDR_FIN))
> >>   		err = __tcp_retransmit_skb(sk, skb);
> >>
> >>   	/* Record snd_nxt for loss detection. */
> >
> >
> > You know, I believe the test was exactly to avoid sending data less FIN
> > packets.
> >
> > If you write :
> >
> >      if (A  || !A)
> >
> > Better remove the condition, completely ;)
> >
> Obviously, but I don't think that FINs are the only segments
> who are targeted by this condition (or targeted at all given
> the implications of this statement). Furthermore, the comment above
> the if statement would probably have mentioned FINs explicity
> and not zero sized segments in general if this were the case.
> 


I see no other possibilities than FIN segments here, or the WARN_ON(!
tcp_skb_pcount(skb)) right before would trigger.

If we believe it could trigger, then we need to remove the WARN_ON(),
because its far more disruptive than waiting a bit more for the RTO.
Remember : RTO is conservative. 

The if (skb->len > 0) only is true for FIN with no data.

This was exactly the intent : Not sending FIN at this stage.

If pure FIN is OK here, just remove the comment and test, this is so
confusing and useless.




--
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