netdev - Re: [BISECT] regression: tcp: fix to allow timestamp undo if no retransmits were sent

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: <CADVnQyma3X8SFor8LgGL5_58G7TqH7-hgXeHSeHC+SKdH5CQkg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2025 14:23:01 -0400
From: Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@...gle.com>
To: Eric Wheeler <netdev@...ts.ewheeler.net>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, 
	Geumhwan Yu <geumhwan.yu@...sung.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, 
	Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>, Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@...gle.com>, stable@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [BISECT] regression: tcp: fix to allow timestamp undo if no
 retransmits were sent

On Tue, Jun 10, 2025 at 1:15 PM Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 9, 2025 at 1:45 PM Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 7, 2025 at 7:26 PM Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@...gle.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, Jun 7, 2025 at 6:54 PM Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@...gle.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Jun 7, 2025 at 3:13 PM Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@...gle.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Jun 6, 2025 at 6:34 PM Eric Wheeler <netdev@...ts.ewheeler.net> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, 6 Jun 2025, Neal Cardwell wrote:
> > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 5, 2025 at 9:33 PM Eric Wheeler <netdev@...ts.ewheeler.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hello Neal,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > After upgrading to Linux v6.6.85 on an older Supermicro SYS-2026T-6RFT+
> > > > > > > > with an Intel 82599ES 10GbE NIC (ixgbe) linked to a Netgear GS728TXS at
> > > > > > > > 10GbE via one SFP+ DAC (no bonding), we found TCP performance with
> > > > > > > > existing devices on 1Gbit ports was <60Mbit; however, TCP with devices
> > > > > > > > across the switch on 10Gbit ports runs at full 10GbE.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Interestingly, the problem only presents itself when transmitting
> > > > > > > > from Linux; receive traffic (to Linux) performs just fine:
> > > > > > > >         ~60Mbit: Linux v6.6.85 =TX=> 10GbE -> switch -> 1GbE  -> device
> > > > > > > >          ~1Gbit: device        =TX=>  1GbE -> switch -> 10GbE -> Linux v6.6.85
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Through bisection, we found this first-bad commit:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >         tcp: fix to allow timestamp undo if no retransmits were sent
> > > > > > > >                 upstream:       e37ab7373696e650d3b6262a5b882aadad69bb9e
> > > > > > > >                 stable 6.6.y:   e676ca60ad2a6fdeb718b5e7a337a8fb1591d45f
>
> Hi Eric,
>
> Do you have cycles to test a proposed fix patch developed by our team?
>
> The attached patch should apply (with "git am") for any recent kernel
> that has the "tcp: fix to allow timestamp undo if no retransmits were
> sent" patch it is fixing. So you should be able to test it on top of
> the 6.6 stable or 6.15 stable kernels you used earlier. Whichever is
> easier.
>
> If you have cycles to rerun your iperf test, with  tcpdump, nstat, and
> ss instrumentation, that would be fantastic!
>
> The patch passes our internal packetdrill test suite, including new
> tests for this issue (based on the packetdrill scripts posted earlier
> in this thread.
>
> But it would be fantastic to directly confirm that this fixes your issue.

Hi Eric (Wheeler),

Just checking: would you be able to test that patch (from my previous
message) in your environment?

If not, given that the patch fixes our packetdrill reproducers, we can
send the patch to the list as-is without that testing.

Thanks,
neal