netdev - Re: [PATCH net 2/3] tcp: enable xmit timer fix by having TLP use time when RTO should fire

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: <1501620015.25002.5.camel@edumazet-glaptop3.roam.corp.google.com>
Date:   Tue, 01 Aug 2017 13:40:15 -0700
From:   Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:     Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@...gle.com>
Cc:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@...gle.com>,
        Nandita Dukkipati <nanditad@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 2/3] tcp: enable xmit timer fix by having TLP use
 time when RTO should fire

On Tue, 2017-08-01 at 10:35 -0400, Neal Cardwell wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 3:22 AM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2017-07-31 at 22:58 -0400, Neal Cardwell wrote:
> >> @@ -2418,13 +2418,9 @@ bool tcp_schedule_loss_probe(struct sock *sk)
> >>       timeout = max_t(u32, timeout, msecs_to_jiffies(10));
> >>
> >>       /* If RTO is shorter, just schedule TLP in its place. */
> >
> > I have hard time to read this comment.
> >
> > We are here trying to arm a timer based on TLP.
> >
> > If RTO is shorter, we'll arm the timer based on RTO instead of TLP.
> >
> > Is "If RTO is shorter, just schedule TLP in its place." really correct ?
> >
> > I suggest we reword the comment or simply get rid of it now the code is
> > more obvious.
> 
> OK, how about:
> 
>   /* If the RTO formula yields an earlier time, then use that time. */
> 

Sounds better :)

> We can also add a reference to the RACK/TLP Internet Draft at the top
> of tcp_schedule_loss_probe().
> 
> Whatever wording we decide on, I am happy to send a patch for net-next
> once this fix is merged into net-next.

Sure.