netdev - Re: RACK not getting disabled

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: <20170918215522.GE28186@strugglingcoder.info>
Date:   Mon, 18 Sep 2017 14:55:22 -0700
From:   hiren panchasara <hiren@...ugglingcoder.info>
To:     Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@...gle.com>
Cc:     Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: RACK not getting disabled

On 09/18/17 at 02:46P, Yuchung Cheng wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 2:29 PM, hiren panchasara
> <hiren@...ugglingcoder.info> wrote:
> > On 09/18/17 at 02:18P, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> >> On Mon, 2017-09-18 at 13:14 -0700, hiren panchasara wrote:
> >> > Hi all, I am trying to disable rack to see 3dupacks in action during
> >> > loss-detection but based on the pcap, I see that it's still trigger
> >> > loss-recovery on the first SACK (as if RACK is still enabled/active).
> just to be clear: 3-dupack (aka RFC3517) is still enabled with RACK
> enabled. I am experimenting a patch set to disable 3-dupack approach
> completely.

So any incoming packet undergoes both checks right now to decide whether
to mark it lost based on 3-dupacks (and eventually rfc6675) and also
rack? Any insights into how they are working together would be great.

Also whichever scheme detects loss first can kick connection into
loss-recovery, right?

Thanks for the clarification, Yuchung.

Cheers,
Hiren

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped