[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6D1725A0A8@AcuExch.aculab.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 08:29:37 +0000
From: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To: 'Vlad Yasevich' <vyasevich@...il.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: SCTP seems to lose its socket state.
From: Vlad Yasevich
> On 06/09/2014 08:49 AM, David Laight wrote:
> > I think I have now reproduced the problem.
> >
> >> 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.
> >
> > Add here, setsockopt(sock, SO_LINGER, { 1, 0 }, ...);
> > If no data is received with a few seconds, close() the socket
> > (do not call shutdown()), and retry.
> >
> > Initially the INIT chunks generate ABORTs (no listener) so both
> > programs just retry every 10 seconds.
> >
> > On B run:
> > iptables -A OUPUT -p sctp --chunk-types any ABORT -j DROP
> > iptables -A INPUT -p sctp --chunk-types any DATA -j DROP
> > The first allows the connection to complete, and then drops the
> > ABORT sent by close().
> > The second stops B acking the data.
>
> Not only that, but the second entry stops B from accepting DATA.
> So, now system B is is guaranteed to destroy it's association after
> it hasn't heard anything for a while, but ABORT is dropped so A
> doesn't learn about it.
Indeed, that is carefully contrived so that A will receive a
duplicate INIT.
B shouldn't destroy the association, these should be TCP-like connections.
The application might give up, but nothing in the M3UA spec requires it
to run a timer (although our version does).
> > System A now receives a new INIT (with a different TSN) and responds with
> > an INIT_ACK (followed by a COOKIE_ECHO and COOKIE_ACK) even though
> > it doesn't have a socket in a suitable state for the connection.
>
> It still has an association in a SHUTDOWN-PENDING state.
> This is collision case A where one end has restarted while the other
> remains open.
>
> The troubling spot here is the ULP has closed the socket already, but
> the association is still around waiting for DATA to be acked.
>
> This appears to be a hole in the spec. I think that the correct
> sequence here would be to send a COOKIE-ACK followed by SHUTDOWN
> so that the remote comes correctly configures an association and
> immediately enters statefull close.
...
> The other solution would be to change the sending application to send
> an ABORT if the data hasn't been reflected back.
I will probably change our code to disconnect with ABORT rather than
SHUTDOWN, especially in the cases where the remote system doesn't
seem to be responding.
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists