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]
Date:	Tue, 19 Apr 2016 21:10:52 -0400 (EDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	eric.dumazet@...il.com
Cc:	edumazet@...gle.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, ncardwell@...gle.com,
	ycheng@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] tcp-tso: do not split TSO packets at
 retransmit time

From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 17:49:50 -0700

> On Tue, 2016-04-19 at 20:36 -0400, David Miller wrote:
>> From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
>> Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 13:56:12 -0700
>> 
>> > 1 % packet losses are common today, and at 100Gbit speeds, this
>> > translates to ~80,000 losses per second. If we are unlucky and
>> > first MSS of a 45-MSS TSO is lost, we are cooking 44 MSS segments
>> > at rtx instead of a single 44-MSS TSO packet.
>> 
>> I'm having trouble understanding this.
>> 
>> If the first mss is lost, then we simply chop the 45 MSS TSO skb into
>> two pieces.  The first piece is a 1 MSS chunk for the retransmit, and
>> the second piece is remaining 44 MSS TSO skb.
>> 
>> I am pretty sure that is what the current stack does, and regardless
>> it is certainly what I intended it to do all those years ago when I
>> wrote this code. :-)
>> 
>> The only case where I can see this patch helping is when we have to
>> retransmit multi-mss chunks.  And yes indeed, it might be a useful
>> optimization to TSO those frames rather than sending them one MSS at a
>> time.
> 
> Yeah, it looks like I got the changelog wrong. We definitely see these
> 1-MSS splits during retransmits all the time, and we had to change the
> sch_fq flow_limit from 100 to 1000 packets to cope with that. (TCP Small
> Queues does not guard TCP from sending hundred of rtx at the same time)

Ok, please rewrite the commit log message so that it is more accuate.

Thank you.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ