netdev - [PATCH net] tcp: fix tcp_tso_should

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20251011115742.1245771-1-edumazet@google.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2025 11:57:42 +0000
From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
To: "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, 
	Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
Cc: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@...gle.com>, 
	Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>, Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...gle.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, 
	eric.dumazet@...il.com, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Subject: [PATCH net] tcp: fix tcp_tso_should_defer() vs large RTT

Neal reported that using neper tcp_stream with TCP_TX_DELAY
set to 50ms would often lead to flows stuck in a small cwnd mode,
regardless of the congestion control.

While tcp_stream sets TCP_TX_DELAY too late after the connect(),
it highlighted two kernel bugs.

The following heuristic in tcp_tso_should_defer() seems wrong
for large RTT:

delta = tp->tcp_clock_cache - head->tstamp;
/* If next ACK is likely to come too late (half srtt), do not defer */
if ((s64)(delta - (u64)NSEC_PER_USEC * (tp->srtt_us >> 4)) < 0)
      goto send_now;

If next ACK is expected to come in more than 1 ms, we should
not defer because we prefer a smooth ACK clocking.

While blamed commit was a step in the good direction, it was not
generic enough.

Another patch fixing TCP_TX_DELAY for established flows
will be proposed when net-next reopens.

Fixes: 50c8339e9299 ("tcp: tso: restore IW10 after TSO autosizing")
Reported-by: Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@...gle.com>
Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
---
 net/ipv4/tcp_output.c | 21 ++++++++++++++++-----
 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/net/ipv4/tcp_output.c b/net/ipv4/tcp_output.c
index bb3576ac0ad7d7330ef272e1d9dc1f19bb8f86bb..bbeed379a3c5342c7de0d2416f97ad944e3e35b0 100644
--- a/net/ipv4/tcp_output.c
+++ b/net/ipv4/tcp_output.c
@@ -2369,7 +2369,8 @@ static bool tcp_tso_should_defer(struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb,
 				 u32 max_segs)
 {
 	const struct inet_connection_sock *icsk = inet_csk(sk);
-	u32 send_win, cong_win, limit, in_flight;
+	u32 send_win, cong_win, limit, in_flight, threshold;
+	u64 srtt_in_ns, expected_ack, how_far_is_the_ack;
 	struct tcp_sock *tp = tcp_sk(sk);
 	struct sk_buff *head;
 	int win_divisor;
@@ -2431,10 +2432,20 @@ static bool tcp_tso_should_defer(struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb,
 	head = tcp_rtx_queue_head(sk);
 	if (!head)
 		goto send_now;
-	delta = tp->tcp_clock_cache - head->tstamp;
-	/* If next ACK is likely to come too late (half srtt), do not defer */
-	if ((s64)(delta - (u64)NSEC_PER_USEC * (tp->srtt_us >> 4)) < 0)
-		goto send_now;
+
+	srtt_in_ns = (u64)(NSEC_PER_USEC >> 3) * tp->srtt_us;
+	/* When is the ACK expected ? */
+	expected_ack = head->tstamp + srtt_in_ns;
+	/* How far from now is the ACK expected ? */
+	how_far_is_the_ack = expected_ack - tp->tcp_clock_cache;
+
+	/* If next ACK is likely to come too late,
+	 * ie in more than min(1ms, half srtt), do not defer.
+	 */
+	threshold = min(srtt_in_ns >> 1, NSEC_PER_MSEC);
+
+	if ((s64)(how_far_is_the_ack - threshold) > 0)
+	     goto send_now;
 
 	/* Ok, it looks like it is advisable to defer.
 	 * Three cases are tracked :
-- 
2.51.0.740.g6adb054d12-goog