| Message ID | 4AC241BA.8040608@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| State | RFC, archived |
| Delegated to: | David Miller |
| Headers | show |
Hi, [ Resending reply due to Android Gmail client sorry state. My apologies if you got it twice. ] Eric Dumazet wrote: > Gilad Ben-Yossef a écrit : > >> From: Ori Finkalman <ori@comsleep.com> >> >> >> Acknowledge TCP window scale support by inserting the proper option in >> SYN/ACK header >> even if our window scale is zero. >> >> >> This fixes the following observed behavior: >> >> >> 1. Client sends a SYN with TCP window scaling option and non zero window >> scale value to a Linux box. >> >> 2. Linux box notes large receive window from client. >> >> 3. Linux decides on a zero value of window scale for its part. >> >> 4. Due to compare against requested window scale size option, Linux does >> not to send windows scale >> >> TCP option header on SYN/ACK at all. >> >> >> Result: >> >> >> Client box thinks TCP window scaling is not supported, since SYN/ACK had >> no TCP window scale option, >> while Linux thinks that TCP window scaling is supported (and scale might >> be non zero), since SYN had >> >> TCP window scale option and we have a mismatched idea between the client >> and server regarding window sizes. >> >> >> Please comment and/or apply. >> ... >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Gilad Ben-Yossef <gilad@codefidence.com> >> Signed-off-by: Ori Finkelman <ori@comsleep.com> >> >> >> Index: net/ipv4/tcp_output.c >> =================================================================== >> --- net/ipv4/tcp_output.c (revision 46) >> +++ net/ipv4/tcp_output.c (revision 210) >> @@ -353,6 +353,7 @@ static void tcp_init_nondata_skb(struct >> #define OPTION_SACK_ADVERTISE (1 << 0) >> #define OPTION_TS (1 << 1) >> #define OPTION_MD5 (1 << 2) >> +#define OPTION_WSCALE (1 << 3) >> >> struct tcp_out_options { >> u8 options; /* bit field of OPTION_* */ >> @@ -417,7 +418,7 @@ static void tcp_options_write(__be32 *pt >> TCPOLEN_SACK_PERM); >> } >> >> - if (unlikely(opts->ws)) { >> + if (unlikely(OPTION_WSCALE & opts->options)) { >> *ptr++ = htonl((TCPOPT_NOP << 24) | >> (TCPOPT_WINDOW << 16) | >> (TCPOLEN_WINDOW << 8) | >> @@ -530,8 +531,8 @@ static unsigned tcp_synack_options(struc >> >> if (likely(ireq->wscale_ok)) { >> opts->ws = ireq->rcv_wscale; >> - if(likely(opts->ws)) >> - size += TCPOLEN_WSCALE_ALIGNED; >> + opts->options |= OPTION_WSCALE; >> + size += TCPOLEN_WSCALE_ALIGNED; >> } >> if (likely(doing_ts)) { >> opts->options |= OPTION_TS; >> >> >> >> > > Seems not the more logical places to put this logic... > > How about this instead ? > > diff --git a/net/ipv4/tcp_output.c b/net/ipv4/tcp_output.c > index 5200aab..b78c084 100644 > --- a/net/ipv4/tcp_output.c > +++ b/net/ipv4/tcp_output.c > @@ -216,6 +216,11 @@ void tcp_select_initial_window(int __space, __u32 mss, > space >>= 1; > (*rcv_wscale)++; > } > + /* > + * Set a minimum wscale of 1 > + */ > + if (*rcv_wscale == 0) > + *rcv_wscale = 1; > } > > /* Set initial window to value enough for senders, > > Thank you for the patch review. The suggested replacement patch certainly is shorter, code wise, which is an advantage. I cant help but feel though, that it is less readable - a window scale of zero is a perfectly legit value. Adding special logic to rule it out just because we chose to overload this setting for something else (whether window scaling is supported or not) seems like an invitation for someone to get it wrong again down the line, in my opinion. Also note that the suggested fix is in line with how other TCP options are handled, e.g. TCP timestamp. Anyone else wants to chime in on that? PS. I also managed to to get the patch author name spelling wrong. It is Ori Finkelman and not as written. Thanks! Gilad
Gilad Ben-Yossef a écrit : > Hi, > > > [ Resending reply due to Android Gmail client sorry state. My apologies > if you got it twice. ] > > > Eric Dumazet wrote: > >> Gilad Ben-Yossef a écrit : >> >>> From: Ori Finkalman <ori@comsleep.com> >>> >>> >>> Acknowledge TCP window scale support by inserting the proper option in >>> SYN/ACK header >>> even if our window scale is zero. >>> >>> >>> This fixes the following observed behavior: >>> >>> >>> 1. Client sends a SYN with TCP window scaling option and non zero window >>> scale value to a Linux box. >>> >>> 2. Linux box notes large receive window from client. >>> >>> 3. Linux decides on a zero value of window scale for its part. >>> >>> 4. Due to compare against requested window scale size option, Linux does >>> not to send windows scale >>> >>> TCP option header on SYN/ACK at all. >>> >>> >>> Result: >>> >>> >>> Client box thinks TCP window scaling is not supported, since SYN/ACK had >>> no TCP window scale option, >>> while Linux thinks that TCP window scaling is supported (and scale might >>> be non zero), since SYN had >>> >>> TCP window scale option and we have a mismatched idea between the client >>> and server regarding window sizes. >>> >>> >>> Please comment and/or apply. >>> ... >>> >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Gilad Ben-Yossef <gilad@codefidence.com> >>> Signed-off-by: Ori Finkelman <ori@comsleep.com> >>> >>> >>> Index: net/ipv4/tcp_output.c >>> =================================================================== >>> --- net/ipv4/tcp_output.c (revision 46) >>> +++ net/ipv4/tcp_output.c (revision 210) >>> @@ -353,6 +353,7 @@ static void tcp_init_nondata_skb(struct >>> #define OPTION_SACK_ADVERTISE (1 << 0) >>> #define OPTION_TS (1 << 1) >>> #define OPTION_MD5 (1 << 2) >>> +#define OPTION_WSCALE (1 << 3) >>> >>> struct tcp_out_options { >>> u8 options; /* bit field of OPTION_* */ >>> @@ -417,7 +418,7 @@ static void tcp_options_write(__be32 *pt >>> TCPOLEN_SACK_PERM); >>> } >>> >>> - if (unlikely(opts->ws)) { >>> + if (unlikely(OPTION_WSCALE & opts->options)) { >>> *ptr++ = htonl((TCPOPT_NOP << 24) | >>> (TCPOPT_WINDOW << 16) | >>> (TCPOLEN_WINDOW << 8) | >>> @@ -530,8 +531,8 @@ static unsigned tcp_synack_options(struc >>> >>> if (likely(ireq->wscale_ok)) { >>> opts->ws = ireq->rcv_wscale; >>> - if(likely(opts->ws)) >>> - size += TCPOLEN_WSCALE_ALIGNED; >>> + opts->options |= OPTION_WSCALE; >>> + size += TCPOLEN_WSCALE_ALIGNED; >>> } >>> if (likely(doing_ts)) { >>> opts->options |= OPTION_TS; >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> Seems not the more logical places to put this logic... >> >> How about this instead ? >> >> diff --git a/net/ipv4/tcp_output.c b/net/ipv4/tcp_output.c >> index 5200aab..b78c084 100644 >> --- a/net/ipv4/tcp_output.c >> +++ b/net/ipv4/tcp_output.c >> @@ -216,6 +216,11 @@ void tcp_select_initial_window(int __space, __u32 >> mss, >> space >>= 1; >> (*rcv_wscale)++; >> } >> + /* >> + * Set a minimum wscale of 1 >> + */ >> + if (*rcv_wscale == 0) >> + *rcv_wscale = 1; >> } >> >> /* Set initial window to value enough for senders, >> >> > > Thank you for the patch review. The suggested replacement patch > certainly is shorter, code wise, which is an advantage. > > I cant help but feel though, that it is less readable - a window scale > of zero is a perfectly legit value. Adding special logic to rule it out > just because we chose to overload this setting for something else > (whether window scaling is supported or not) seems like an invitation > for someone to get it wrong again down the line, in my opinion. As a matter of fact I didnot test your patch. My reaction was driven by : Your version slows down the tcp_options_write() function, once per tx packet. tcp_options_write() should not change socket state, while tcp_select_initial_window() is the exact place where we are supposed to compute wscale. Also how is managed tcp_syn_options() case (for outgoing connections ?) if (likely(sysctl_tcp_window_scaling)) { opts->ws = tp->rx_opt.rcv_wscale; if (likely(opts->ws)) size += TCPOLEN_WSCALE_ALIGNED; } Dont you need to patch it as well ? > > Also note that the suggested fix is in line with how other TCP options > are handled, e.g. TCP timestamp. > > Anyone else wants to chime in on that? > > PS. I also managed to to get the patch author name spelling wrong. It is > Ori Finkelman and not as written. > > Thanks! > Gilad > > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Wed, 30 Sep 2009, Eric Dumazet wrote: > Gilad Ben-Yossef a écrit : > > > > Eric Dumazet wrote: > > > >> Gilad Ben-Yossef a écrit : > >> > >>> From: Ori Finkalman <ori@comsleep.com> > >>> > >>> > >>> Acknowledge TCP window scale support by inserting the proper option in > >>> SYN/ACK header > >>> even if our window scale is zero. > >>> > >>> > >>> This fixes the following observed behavior: > >>> > >>> > >>> 1. Client sends a SYN with TCP window scaling option and non zero window > >>> scale value to a Linux box. > >>> > >>> 2. Linux box notes large receive window from client. > >>> > >>> 3. Linux decides on a zero value of window scale for its part. > >>> > >>> 4. Due to compare against requested window scale size option, Linux does > >>> not to send windows scale > >>> > >>> TCP option header on SYN/ACK at all. > >>> > >>> > >>> Result: > >>> > >>> > >>> Client box thinks TCP window scaling is not supported, since SYN/ACK had > >>> no TCP window scale option, > >>> while Linux thinks that TCP window scaling is supported (and scale might > >>> be non zero), since SYN had > >>> > >>> TCP window scale option and we have a mismatched idea between the client > >>> and server regarding window sizes. > >>> > >>> > >>> Please comment and/or apply. > >>> ... > >>> > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Gilad Ben-Yossef <gilad@codefidence.com> > >>> Signed-off-by: Ori Finkelman <ori@comsleep.com> > >>> > >>> > >>> Index: net/ipv4/tcp_output.c > >>> =================================================================== > >>> --- net/ipv4/tcp_output.c (revision 46) > >>> +++ net/ipv4/tcp_output.c (revision 210) > >>> @@ -353,6 +353,7 @@ static void tcp_init_nondata_skb(struct > >>> #define OPTION_SACK_ADVERTISE (1 << 0) > >>> #define OPTION_TS (1 << 1) > >>> #define OPTION_MD5 (1 << 2) > >>> +#define OPTION_WSCALE (1 << 3) > >>> > >>> struct tcp_out_options { > >>> u8 options; /* bit field of OPTION_* */ > >>> @@ -417,7 +418,7 @@ static void tcp_options_write(__be32 *pt > >>> TCPOLEN_SACK_PERM); > >>> } > >>> > >>> - if (unlikely(opts->ws)) { > >>> + if (unlikely(OPTION_WSCALE & opts->options)) { > >>> *ptr++ = htonl((TCPOPT_NOP << 24) | > >>> (TCPOPT_WINDOW << 16) | > >>> (TCPOLEN_WINDOW << 8) | > >>> @@ -530,8 +531,8 @@ static unsigned tcp_synack_options(struc > >>> > >>> if (likely(ireq->wscale_ok)) { > >>> opts->ws = ireq->rcv_wscale; > >>> - if(likely(opts->ws)) > >>> - size += TCPOLEN_WSCALE_ALIGNED; > >>> + opts->options |= OPTION_WSCALE; > >>> + size += TCPOLEN_WSCALE_ALIGNED; > >>> } > >>> if (likely(doing_ts)) { > >>> opts->options |= OPTION_TS; > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> Seems not the more logical places to put this logic... > >> > >> How about this instead ? > >> > >> diff --git a/net/ipv4/tcp_output.c b/net/ipv4/tcp_output.c > >> index 5200aab..b78c084 100644 > >> --- a/net/ipv4/tcp_output.c > >> +++ b/net/ipv4/tcp_output.c > >> @@ -216,6 +216,11 @@ void tcp_select_initial_window(int __space, __u32 > >> mss, > >> space >>= 1; > >> (*rcv_wscale)++; > >> } > >> + /* > >> + * Set a minimum wscale of 1 > >> + */ > >> + if (*rcv_wscale == 0) > >> + *rcv_wscale = 1; > >> } > >> > >> /* Set initial window to value enough for senders, > >> > >> > > > > Thank you for the patch review. The suggested replacement patch > > certainly is shorter, code wise, which is an advantage. > > > > I cant help but feel though, that it is less readable - a window scale > > of zero is a perfectly legit value. Adding special logic to rule it out > > just because we chose to overload this setting for something else > > (whether window scaling is supported or not) seems like an invitation > > for someone to get it wrong again down the line, in my opinion. > > As a matter of fact I didnot test your patch. > > My reaction was driven by : > > Your version slows down the tcp_options_write() function, once per tx packet. Are you serious that anding would cost that much? :-/ > tcp_options_write() should not change socket state, I fail to see how his patch was changing socket state in anyway in anywhere? > while > tcp_select_initial_window() is the exact place where we are supposed to > compute wscale. And it calculated yielding to result of 0, which is perfectly valid. The problem is that tcp_write_options thinks that 0 is indication of no window scaling, instead of the correct interpretation of zero window scaling which makes the huge difference for the opposite direction traffic as these guys have noted. Not that I find your approach that bad either as we only lose 1-bit accuracy for the window which is rather insignificant as 1-byte window increments do not really make that much sense anyway (and we have to specifically code against doing them anyway so the effective granularity is much higher). > Also how is managed tcp_syn_options() case (for outgoing connections ?) > > if (likely(sysctl_tcp_window_scaling)) { > opts->ws = tp->rx_opt.rcv_wscale; > if (likely(opts->ws)) > size += TCPOLEN_WSCALE_ALIGNED; > } > > Dont you need to patch it as well ? One certainly should change that too if that patch is the way to go forward.
Ilpo Järvinen a écrit : > On Wed, 30 Sep 2009, Eric Dumazet wrote: > >> Gilad Ben-Yossef a écrit : >>> Eric Dumazet wrote: >>> >>>> Gilad Ben-Yossef a écrit : >>>> >>>>> From: Ori Finkalman <ori@comsleep.com> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Acknowledge TCP window scale support by inserting the proper option in >>>>> SYN/ACK header >>>>> even if our window scale is zero. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> This fixes the following observed behavior: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 1. Client sends a SYN with TCP window scaling option and non zero window >>>>> scale value to a Linux box. >>>>> >>>>> 2. Linux box notes large receive window from client. >>>>> >>>>> 3. Linux decides on a zero value of window scale for its part. >>>>> >>>>> 4. Due to compare against requested window scale size option, Linux does >>>>> not to send windows scale >>>>> >>>>> TCP option header on SYN/ACK at all. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Result: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Client box thinks TCP window scaling is not supported, since SYN/ACK had >>>>> no TCP window scale option, >>>>> while Linux thinks that TCP window scaling is supported (and scale might >>>>> be non zero), since SYN had >>>>> >>>>> TCP window scale option and we have a mismatched idea between the client >>>>> and server regarding window sizes. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Please comment and/or apply. >>>>> ... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Gilad Ben-Yossef <gilad@codefidence.com> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Ori Finkelman <ori@comsleep.com> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Index: net/ipv4/tcp_output.c >>>>> =================================================================== >>>>> --- net/ipv4/tcp_output.c (revision 46) >>>>> +++ net/ipv4/tcp_output.c (revision 210) >>>>> @@ -353,6 +353,7 @@ static void tcp_init_nondata_skb(struct >>>>> #define OPTION_SACK_ADVERTISE (1 << 0) >>>>> #define OPTION_TS (1 << 1) >>>>> #define OPTION_MD5 (1 << 2) >>>>> +#define OPTION_WSCALE (1 << 3) >>>>> >>>>> struct tcp_out_options { >>>>> u8 options; /* bit field of OPTION_* */ >>>>> @@ -417,7 +418,7 @@ static void tcp_options_write(__be32 *pt >>>>> TCPOLEN_SACK_PERM); >>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> - if (unlikely(opts->ws)) { >>>>> + if (unlikely(OPTION_WSCALE & opts->options)) { >>>>> *ptr++ = htonl((TCPOPT_NOP << 24) | >>>>> (TCPOPT_WINDOW << 16) | >>>>> (TCPOLEN_WINDOW << 8) | >>>>> @@ -530,8 +531,8 @@ static unsigned tcp_synack_options(struc >>>>> >>>>> if (likely(ireq->wscale_ok)) { >>>>> opts->ws = ireq->rcv_wscale; >>>>> - if(likely(opts->ws)) >>>>> - size += TCPOLEN_WSCALE_ALIGNED; >>>>> + opts->options |= OPTION_WSCALE; >>>>> + size += TCPOLEN_WSCALE_ALIGNED; >>>>> } >>>>> if (likely(doing_ts)) { >>>>> opts->options |= OPTION_TS; >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Seems not the more logical places to put this logic... >>>> >>>> How about this instead ? >>>> >>>> diff --git a/net/ipv4/tcp_output.c b/net/ipv4/tcp_output.c >>>> index 5200aab..b78c084 100644 >>>> --- a/net/ipv4/tcp_output.c >>>> +++ b/net/ipv4/tcp_output.c >>>> @@ -216,6 +216,11 @@ void tcp_select_initial_window(int __space, __u32 >>>> mss, >>>> space >>= 1; >>>> (*rcv_wscale)++; >>>> } >>>> + /* >>>> + * Set a minimum wscale of 1 >>>> + */ >>>> + if (*rcv_wscale == 0) >>>> + *rcv_wscale = 1; >>>> } >>>> >>>> /* Set initial window to value enough for senders, >>>> >>>> >>> Thank you for the patch review. The suggested replacement patch >>> certainly is shorter, code wise, which is an advantage. >>> >>> I cant help but feel though, that it is less readable - a window scale >>> of zero is a perfectly legit value. Adding special logic to rule it out >>> just because we chose to overload this setting for something else >>> (whether window scaling is supported or not) seems like an invitation >>> for someone to get it wrong again down the line, in my opinion. >> As a matter of fact I didnot test your patch. >> >> My reaction was driven by : >> >> Your version slows down the tcp_options_write() function, once per tx packet. > > Are you serious that anding would cost that much? :-/ Not really :) > >> tcp_options_write() should not change socket state, > > I fail to see how his patch was changing socket state in anyway in > anywhere? Me too, now you say it :) > >> while >> tcp_select_initial_window() is the exact place where we are supposed to >> compute wscale. > > And it calculated yielding to result of 0, which is perfectly valid. The > problem is that tcp_write_options thinks that 0 is indication of no window > scaling, instead of the correct interpretation of zero window scaling > which makes the huge difference for the opposite direction traffic as > these guys have noted. Not that I find your approach that bad either as > we only lose 1-bit accuracy for the window which is rather insignificant > as 1-byte window increments do not really make that much sense anyway > (and we have to specifically code against doing them anyway so the > effective granularity is much higher). Yes, wscale 0 is RFC valid, but are we sure some equipment wont play funny games with such value ? At least sending "wscale 1-14" must be working... My quick&dirty patch was only for discussion, I have no strong opinion on it, only that was on one place to patch instead of two/three/four I dont know yet. So please Gilad & Ori send us a new patch :) > >> Also how is managed tcp_syn_options() case (for outgoing connections ?) >> >> if (likely(sysctl_tcp_window_scaling)) { >> opts->ws = tp->rx_opt.rcv_wscale; >> if (likely(opts->ws)) >> size += TCPOLEN_WSCALE_ALIGNED; >> } >> >> Dont you need to patch it as well ? > > One certainly should change that too if that patch is the way to go > forward. > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Eric Dumazet wrote: > >>> >>> Your version slows down the tcp_options_write() function, once per tx packet. >>> >> Are you serious that anding would cost that much? :-/ >> > > Not really :) > LOL I was trying very hard to understand why you thought this was such an issue. My head was flying into all sorts of weird directions like cache effects and the like... ;-) <snip> > Yes, wscale 0 is RFC valid, but are we sure some equipment wont play funny games > with such value ? At least sending "wscale 1-14" must be working... > Well, there at least used to be routers that would actually zeroed the WS value in transit while leaving the option set, but this is another issue of course. Anyway, I know Vista at least does set the window scale TCP option by default. One assumes they occasionally send a zero value scale. Not that Vista is such a good benchmark to compare Linux to but at least I tend to believe the issue would have popped up if it is common enough. I can craft a patch to introduce a route table option to set TCP window scale minimum and maximum sizes, similar to window size route option, if you there is a need for that. Personally, I think it is just overkill. > > My quick&dirty patch was only for discussion, I have no strong opinion on it, > only that was on one place to patch instead of two/three/four I dont know yet. > > So please Gilad & Ori send us a new patch :) > > Revised patch follows in next email. Gilad
diff --git a/net/ipv4/tcp_output.c b/net/ipv4/tcp_output.c index 5200aab..b78c084 100644 --- a/net/ipv4/tcp_output.c +++ b/net/ipv4/tcp_output.c @@ -216,6 +216,11 @@ void tcp_select_initial_window(int __space, __u32 mss, space >>= 1; (*rcv_wscale)++; } + /* + * Set a minimum wscale of 1 + */ + if (*rcv_wscale == 0) + *rcv_wscale = 1; } /* Set initial window to value enough for senders,