netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] tcp: don't extend RTO on failed loss probe attempts

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: <CAK6E8=dg6VC4QE3OchoSHtf6Ewj-VHchjq-BkV_8P1nEzW2ucw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 21 Jul 2015 10:55:07 -0700
From:	Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@...gle.com>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] tcp: don't extend RTO on failed loss probe attempts

On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 10:27 PM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2015-07-17 at 14:22 -0700, Yuchung Cheng wrote:
> > If TLP was unable to send a probe, it extended the RTO to
> > now + icsk_rto. But extending the RTO makes little sense
> > if no TLP probe went out. With this commit, instead of
> > extending the RTO we re-arm it relative to the transmit time
> > of the write queue head.
>
> But what was the reason the probe could not be sent ?
>
> If it is local congestion or memory allocation error, it does make sense
> to not add fuel to the fire.
Good point. We can identify those so we don't attempt to
retransmit on these errors, but will retransmit on receive-window
limit. I'll re-spin the patch.

>
>
>
--
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