sctp: be more restrictive in transport selection on bundled sacks
It was noticed recently that when we send data on a transport, its possible that we might bundle a sack that arrived on a different transport. While this isn't a major problem, it does go against the SHOULD requirement in section 6.4 of RFC 2960: An endpoint SHOULD transmit reply chunks (e.g., SACK, HEARTBEAT ACK, etc.) to the same destination transport address from which it received the DATA or control chunk to which it is replying. This rule should also be followed if the endpoint is bundling DATA chunks together with the reply chunk. This patch seeks to correct that. It restricts the bundling of sack operations to only those transports which have moved the ctsn of the association forward since the last sack. By doing this we guarantee that we only bundle outbound saks on a transport that has received a chunk since the last sack. This brings us into stricter compliance with the RFC. Vlad had initially suggested that we strictly allow only sack bundling on the transport that last moved the ctsn forward. While this makes sense, I was concerned that doing so prevented us from bundling in the case where we had received chunks that moved the ctsn on multiple transports. In those cases, the RFC allows us to select any of the transports having received chunks to bundle the sack on. so I've modified the approach to allow for that, by adding a state variable to each transport that tracks weather it has moved the ctsn since the last sack. This I think keeps our behavior (and performance), close enough to our current profile that I think we can do this without a sysctl knob to enable/disable it. Signed-off-by: NNeil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com> CC: Vlad Yaseivch <vyasevich@gmail.com> CC: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net> CC: linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org Reported-by: NMichele Baldessari <michele@redhat.com> Reported-by: Nsorin serban <sserban@redhat.com> Acked-by: NVlad Yasevich <vyasevich@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: NDavid S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Showing
想要评论请 注册 或 登录