From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.toke.dk (mail.toke.dk [52.28.52.200]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9D2213BA8E for ; Sun, 29 Apr 2018 06:45:28 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2018 12:45:26 +0200 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=toke.dk; s=20161023; t=1524998727; bh=hk1EzDT2GnResVxjHzJolXrEXggC+8xP1gpvEk1mi+8=; h=Date:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:To:CC:From:From; b=WNcsyldtwAfjH1cqRFZ5fuoLwQxSbnQoHXaDf12bpjhAcPetJH5Jwiu+ruHX42Vo+ jlSZkqSjPtSDjd3DRVFsccGFSfPALHinUk8wgEvJ4pnboORVS2SRwp7nfUBXIz74G7 Ryqn9jQqAcXmjKAxOag7i2jVAQhnrzwnNRwPMPbm1sq9DicDqv5c7zr6di1x0FTwsH tQ47gu6ADDGJfbSvnCfaJxFdtSiwrqTPGJ1UfVzS0heOFmF7cceyo9fi8GzPzZBnY0 Otkoo3UY0Ylo2YlRRc2q1bTrogVMIBFTaZuYWsxs34+Nm5vXnRC/Z2HoH/JAhdQuCV cb/ftOIYNo3Wg== In-Reply-To: References: <87wowr2e8t.fsf@toke.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To: Ryan Mounce CC: Cake List From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Toke_H=F8iland-J=F8rgensen?= X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett Message-ID: <36AF888D-0AE5-4062-99FC-A6DB9CFA75D3@toke.dk> Subject: Re: [Cake] Hopefully fixed ACK filter for v6 X-BeenThere: cake@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Cake - FQ_codel the next generation List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2018 10:45:28 -0000 On 29 April 2018 03:01:55 CEST, Ryan Mounce wrote= : >On 29 April 2018 at 07:19, Toke H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen wrote: >> Think I finally managed to fix the ACK filter so it works for both >6in4 >> and regular v6 (the latter seems to have been broken since the commit >> "e6b72c2 ack_filter: make less aggressive by default" which >accidentally >> reversed the address compare logic)=2E It should also be safe against >> weirdly fragmented packets (ha! famous last words!)=2E >> >> If someone wants to either eyeball the code and/or test the ACK >filter >> please do=2E I'm planning to resubmit the patch to netdev sometime >> tomorrow evening :) > >Eyeballing now, only a couple of comments=2E > >- Initialisation of iph and ipv6h can be moved before the while() >loop=2E The compiler probably does this anyway=2E Yeah, figured I'd let the compiler deal with that=2E=2E=2E >- Whether it is worth the complexity of restoring the >skb->encapsulation check within cake_get_tcphdr to handle other cases >of encapsulated v4/v6 traffic=2E I may find some time to test this later >today=2E The reason I removed the check for skb->encapsulation was that in my tests= it wasn't actually set for 6in4 traffic=2E And looking at the code that touches it, that field seems to mostly be rel= ated to offloads? Or did you actually see any effect of using it when you a= dded it initially? :P >Everything else looks good to me, much cleaner=2E Awesome, thanks for taking a look! >Thank you so much for your efforts so far in getting cake upstream, >and in particular to rescue ACK filtering=2E We may have to send you a >real cake! Haha, you're very welcome=2E Real cake will be appreciated, but don't feel= any obligations ;) -Toke