netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH net-next] tcp: add CDG congestion control

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAA93jw7gNnr3OEJ8nJ0mj=hFOrObcatwEDVV6CXvtX28VCHO2g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 4 Jun 2015 09:27:10 -0700
From:	Dave Taht <dave.taht@...il.com>
To:	Kenneth Klette Jonassen <kennetkl@....uio.no>
Cc:	Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@...gle.com>, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	David Hayes <davihay@....uio.no>,
	Andreas Petlund <apetlund@...ula.no>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next] tcp: add CDG congestion control

On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 9:19 AM, Kenneth Klette Jonassen
<kennetkl@....uio.no> wrote:
>> why not just call tcp_init_cwnd_reduction()?
>
> I deferred considering the ECN implications of doing so. The code to
> start PRR was based on tcp_enter_cwr()/tcp_init_cwnd_reduction(), save
> that both of these functions ensure a call to tcp_ecn_queue_cwr().
>
> The upcoming patch set instead exports tcp_enter_cwr() and calls it,
> which sets CWR on ECN-capable connections.
>
> Consider CDG at the sender-side. The RFC 3168 Errata says that a
> receiver should:
> "First, reset ECE because of CWR
> Second, set ECE because of CE"
>
> Thus, in "good networks", setting CWR on a CDG backoff should not
> affect ECN signalling – we still get ECE from the receiver.

On the AQM front I have been trying to deal with queue overload in the presence
of ECN with drop, then mark behavior. This handles the case of an unresponsive
(lying) flow, and overload in general, on the queue side.

... however it is unclear to me how well various tcps are responding
to the combination
of these two signals, and finding a threshold to switch to drop + mark is hard.

I have certainly had cases where every incoming packet ended up marked
CE, to not
enough effect, fast enough.

> It is conceivable that fringe scenarios of ECN in the forward path and
> losses in the ACK path creates a situation where CDG's backoff could
> inhibit some ECN signals from the receiver. That is, setting CWR will
> inhibit the signalling reliability of standard ECN in TCP. But we are
> arguably still in good faith since we have reduced the congestion
> window by some beta.



-- 
Dave Täht
What will it take to vastly improve wifi for everyone?
https://plus.google.com/u/0/explore/makewififast
--
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