netdev - Re: [PATCH net] tcp: avoid multiple ssthresh reductions in on retransmit window

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]

Message-ID: <CADVnQy=sd2V2A5Rzd+OtcH1a+un3-fATSn_acKdMKUcdbpGadg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 16 Jun 2014 19:42:26 -0400
From:	Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@...gle.com>
To:	Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@...gle.com>
Cc:	Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>,
	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
	Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] tcp: avoid multiple ssthresh reductions in on
 retransmit window

On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 6:39 PM, Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@...gle.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 2:19 PM, Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz> wrote:
>> RFC 5681 says that ssthresh reduction in response to RTO should
>> be done only once and should not be repeated until all packets
>> from the first loss are retransmitted. RFC 6582 (as well as its
>> predecessor RFC 3782) is even more specific and says that when
>> loss is detected, one should mark current SND.NXT and ssthresh
>> shouldn't be reduced again due to a loss until SND.UNA reaches
>> this remembered value.
>>
>> In Linux implementation, this is done in tcp_enter_loss() but an
>> additional condition
>>
>>   (icsk->icsk_ca_state == TCP_CA_Loss && !icsk->icsk_retransmits)
>>
>> allows to further reduce ssthresh before snd_una reaches the
>> high_seq (the snd_nxt value at the previous loss) as
>> icsk_retransmits is reset as soon as snd_una moves forward. As a
>> result, if a retransmit timeout ouccurs early in the retransmit
>> phase, we can adjust snd_ssthresh based on very low value of
>> cwnd. This can be especially harmful for reno congestion control
>> with slow linear cwnd growth in congestion avoidance phase.
>>
>> The patch removes the condition above so that snd_ssthresh is
>> not reduced again until snd_una reaches high_seq as described in
>> RFC 5681 and 6582.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>

AFAICT this commit description is arguing from a mis-reading of the
RFCs.

RFC 6582 and RFC 3782 are only about Fast Recovery, and not relevant
to the timeout recovery we're dealing with in tcp_enter_loss().

RFC 5681, Section 4.3 says:

   Loss in two successive windows of data, or the loss of a
   retransmission, should be taken as two indications of congestion and,
   therefore, cwnd (and ssthresh) MUST be lowered twice in this case.

So if we're in TCP_CA_Loss snd_una advances (FLAG_DATA_ACKED is set
and icsk_retransmits is zero), but snd_una does not advance above
high_seq, then if we subsequently suffer an RTO (and call
tcp_enter_loss()) then that indicates a retransmission is lost, which
this passage from sec 4.3 indicates should be taken as a second
indication of congestion.

> - (icsk->icsk_ca_state == TCP_CA_Loss && !icsk->icsk_retransmits)) {

AFAICT this existing code is a faithful implementation of, RFC 5681,
Section 7:

   The treatment of ssthresh on retransmission timeout was clarified.
   In particular, ssthresh must be set to half the FlightSize on the
   first retransmission of a given segment and then is held constant on
   subsequent retransmissions of the same segment.

That is, if snd_una advances (FLAG_DATA_ACKED is set and
icsk_retransmits is zero), if we subsequently suffer an RTO and call
tcp_enter_loss() then we will be sending a "first retransmission" at
the segment pointed to by the new/higher snd_una. So this is the first
retransmission of that new segment, so we should reduce ssthresh.

And from first principles, the current Linux code and RFCs seem
sensible on this matter, AFAICT. Suppose we suffer an RTO, and then
over the following RTTs in TCP_CA_Loss we grow cwnd exponentially
again. If we suffer another RTO in this cwnd growth process, then it
seems like a good idea to remember the reduced ssthresh inferred from
this smaller cwnd at which we suffered a loss.

So AFAICT the existing code is sensible and complies with the RFC.

Now, I agree the linear growth of Reno in such situations is
problematic, but I think it's a somewhat separate issue. Or at least
if we're going to change the behavior here then we should justify it
by using data, and not by reference to RFCs. :-)

neal
--
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