From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-bw0-f43.google.com (mail-bw0-f43.google.com [209.85.214.43]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority" (verified OK)) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5F685201A3B for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 05:13:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by bkas6 with SMTP id s6so13948920bka.16 for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 05:13:38 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to:references :content-type:x-mailer:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=MNbWQLXBYrWiMytlDfC9JToOj2ZdPgx9qRHWv59ncY4=; b=LoV9INL5Wxa9jFDKpc8j/dr7YrIVNfJNb2UKKRmx9YqPk5U7b+T06wa3qdAGI9DZO5 MXL7QEDp1kKKDyckjF8OLa4O9ob1aGQhXHem+vrs0nD9XHB4zDYjPkc0a3kJ56nZ8/yh PeuSwvq141Z9C1W/ctb9wckM2fz7fAyjoaZLE= Received: by 10.204.144.198 with SMTP id a6mr9468769bkv.9.1318335218218; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 05:13:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.150.51.213] (gw0.net.jmsp.net. [212.23.165.14]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id u10sm10647485bkv.3.2011.10.11.05.13.35 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 11 Oct 2011 05:13:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <1318335234.2538.9.camel@edumazet-HP-Compaq-6005-Pro-SFF-PC> From: Eric Dumazet To: "Steinar H. Gunderson" Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 14:13:54 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20111011115816.GA24956@uio.no> References: <4E941A05.2050705@gmail.com> <20111011115816.GA24956@uio.no> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.0- Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net Subject: Re: [Bloat] a flood of Bufferbloat-related papers X-BeenThere: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: General list for discussing Bufferbloat List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 12:13:40 -0000 Le mardi 11 octobre 2011 à 13:58 +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson a écrit : > On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 12:27:17PM +0200, David Täht wrote: > > On my list already would be "an analysis of the effects of broken sack > > processing on linux 2.4.24-3.1", of which I *think* I've captured > > multiple examples of in the raw traces I've been collecting for > > months... (so if anyone is interested in the raw data, I can provide) > > Do you have any more information? The only thing I could find online was that > there were SACK issues that were supposed to be fixed by 2.6.16; nothing > about a fix in 3.1 or post-3.1. > Of course, instead of discussing all linux stuff privately, it would be good to discuss with linux network maintainers. Or is the goal is to provide nice papers only ? commit f779b2d60ab95c17f1e025778ed0df3ec2f05d75 Author: Zheng Yan Date: Sun Sep 18 22:37:34 2011 -0400 tcp: fix validation of D-SACK D-SACK is allowed to reside below snd_una. But the corresponding check in tcp_is_sackblock_valid() is the exact opposite. It looks like a typo. Signed-off-by: Zheng Yan Acked-by: Eric Dumazet Signed-off-by: David S. Miller diff --git a/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c b/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c index ea0d218..21fab3e 100644 --- a/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c +++ b/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c @@ -1124,7 +1124,7 @@ static int tcp_is_sackblock_valid(struct tcp_sock *tp, int is_dsack, return 0; /* ...Then it's D-SACK, and must reside below snd_una completely */ - if (!after(end_seq, tp->snd_una)) + if (after(end_seq, tp->snd_una)) return 0; if (!before(start_seq, tp->undo_marker))