Skip to content

R
raspberrypi-kernel

openeuler / raspberrypi-kernel

通知 13
Star 1
Fork 0
R
raspberrypi-kernel
切换分支/标签
  1. 04 12月, 2009 1 次提交
  3. 05 9月, 2009 3 次提交
    • V
      sctp: Try not to change a_rwnd when faking a SACK from SHUTDOWN. · d4d6fb57
      由 Vlad Yasevich 提交于 
      We currently set a_rwnd to 0 when faking a SACK from SHUTDOWN.
This results in an hung association if the remote only uses
SHUTDOWNs (which it's allowed to do) to acknowlege DATA when
closing.  The reason for that is that we simply honor the a_rwnd
from the sack, but since we faked it to be 0, we enter 0-window
probing.  The fix is to use the peers old rwnd and add our flight
size to it.
Signed-off-by: NVlad Yasevich <vladislav.yasevich@hp.com>
      d4d6fb57
    • V
      sctp: Fix error count increments that were results of HEARTBEATS · b9f84786
      由 Vlad Yasevich 提交于 
      SCTP RFC 4960 states that unacknowledged HEARTBEATS count as
errors agains a given transport or endpoint.  As such, we
should increment the error counts for only for unacknowledged
HB, otherwise we detect failure too soon.  This goes for both
the overall error count and the path error count.

Now, there is a difference in how the detection is done
between the two.  The path error detection is done after
the increment, so to detect it properly, we actually need
to exceed the path threshold.  The overall error detection
is done _BEFORE_ the increment.  Thus to detect the failure,
it's enough for the error count to match the threshold.
This is why all the state functions use '>=' to detect failure,
while path detection uses '>'.

Thanks goes to Chunbo Luo <chunbo.luo@windriver.com> who first
proposed patches to fix this issue and made me re-read the spec
and the code to figure out how this cruft really works.
Signed-off-by: NVlad Yasevich <vladislav.yasevich@hp.com>
      b9f84786
    • V
      sctp: Send user messages to the lower layer as one · 9c5c62be
      由 Vlad Yasevich 提交于 
      Currenlty, sctp breaks up user messages into fragments and
sends each fragment to the lower layer by itself.  This means
that for each fragment we go all the way down the stack
and back up.  This also discourages bundling of multiple
fragments when they can fit into a sigle packet (ex: due
to user setting a low fragmentation threashold).

We introduce a new command SCTP_CMD_SND_MSG and hand the
whole message down state machine.  The state machine and
the side-effect parser will cork the queue, add all chunks
from the message to the queue, and then un-cork the queue
thus causing the chunks to get transmitted.
Signed-off-by: NVlad Yasevich <vladislav.yasevich@hp.com>
      9c5c62be
  5. 03 6月, 2009 1 次提交
    • W
      sctp: fix to choose alternate destination when retransmit ASCONF chunk · 9919b455
      由 Wei Yongjun 提交于 
      RFC 5061 Section 5.1 ASCONF Chunk Procedures said:

B4)  Re-transmit the ASCONF Chunk last sent and if possible choose an
     alternate destination address (please refer to [RFC4960],
     Section 6.4.1).  An endpoint MUST NOT add new parameters to this
     chunk; it MUST be the same (including its Sequence Number) as
     the last ASCONF sent.  An endpoint MAY, however, bundle an
     additional ASCONF with new ASCONF parameters with the next
     Sequence Number.  For details, see Section 5.5.

This patch fix to choose an alternate destination address when
re-transmit the ASCONF chunk, with some dup codes cleanup.
Signed-off-by: NWei Yongjun <yjwei@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: NVlad Yasevich <vladislav.yasevich@hp.com>
      9919b455
  7. 03 3月, 2009 2 次提交
  9. 16 2月, 2009 1 次提交
    • V
      sctp: Fix the RTO-doubling on idle-link heartbeats · faee47cd
      由 Vlad Yasevich 提交于 
      SCTP incorrectly doubles rto ever time a Hearbeat chunk
is generated.   However RFC 4960 states:

   On an idle destination address that is allowed to heartbeat, it is
   recommended that a HEARTBEAT chunk is sent once per RTO of that
   destination address plus the protocol parameter 'HB.interval', with
   jittering of +/- 50% of the RTO value, and exponential backoff of the
   RTO if the previous HEARTBEAT is unanswered.

Essentially, of if the heartbean is unacknowledged, do we double the RTO.
Signed-off-by: NVlad Yasevich <vladislav.yasevich@hp.com>
Signed-off-by: NDavid S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
      faee47cd
  11. 09 10月, 2008 1 次提交
    • V
      sctp: Rework the tsn map to use generic bitmap. · 8e1ee18c
      由 Vlad Yasevich 提交于 
      The tsn map currently use is 4K large and is stuck inside
the sctp_association structure making memory references REALLY
expensive.  What we really need is at most 4K worth of bits
so the biggest map we would have is 512 bytes.   Also, the
map is only really usefull when we have gaps to store and
report.  As such, starting with minimal map of say 32 TSNs (bits)
should be enough for normal low-loss operations.  We can grow
the map by some multiple of 32 along with some extra room any
time we receive the TSN which would put us outside of the map
boundry.  As we close gaps, we can shift the map to rebase
it on the latest TSN we've seen.  This saves 4088 bytes per
association just in the map alone along savings from the now
unnecessary structure members.
Signed-off-by: NVlad Yasevich <vladislav.yasevich@hp.com>
Signed-off-by: NDavid S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
      8e1ee18c
  13. 01 10月, 2008 1 次提交
  15. 20 6月, 2008 1 次提交
    • V
      sctp: Follow security requirement of responding with 1 packet · 2e3216cd
      由 Vlad Yasevich 提交于 
      RFC 4960, Section 11.4. Protection of Non-SCTP-Capable Hosts

When an SCTP stack receives a packet containing multiple control or
DATA chunks and the processing of the packet requires the sending of
multiple chunks in response, the sender of the response chunk(s) MUST
NOT send more than one packet.  If bundling is supported, multiple
response chunks that fit into a single packet MAY be bundled together
into one single response packet.  If bundling is not supported, then
the sender MUST NOT send more than one response chunk and MUST
discard all other responses.  Note that this rule does NOT apply to a
SACK chunk, since a SACK chunk is, in itself, a response to DATA and
a SACK does not require a response of more DATA.

We implement this by not servicing our outqueue until we reach the end
of the packet.  This enables maximum bundling.  We also identify
'response' chunks and make sure that we only send 1 packet when sending
such chunks.
Signed-off-by: NVlad Yasevich <vladislav.yasevich@hp.com>
Signed-off-by: NDavid S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
      2e3216cd
  17. 10 5月, 2008 1 次提交
  19. 13 4月, 2008 3 次提交
  21. 06 3月, 2008 1 次提交
  23. 05 2月, 2008 1 次提交
  25. 08 11月, 2007 1 次提交
    • V
      SCTP: Fix difference cases of retransmit. · b6157d8e
      由 Vlad Yasevich 提交于 
      Commit d0ce9291 broke several retransmit
cases including fast retransmit.  The reason is that we should
only delay by rto while doing retranmists as a result of a timeout.
Retransmit as a result of path mtu discover, fast retransmit, or
other evernts that should trigger immidiate retransmissions got broken.

Also, since rto is doubled prior to marking of packets elegable for
retransmission, we never marked correct chunks anyway.

The fix is provide a reason for a given retransmission so that we
can mark chunks appropriately and to save the old rto value to do
comparisons against.

All regressions tests passed with this code.

Spotted by Wei Yongjun <yjwei@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: NVlad Yasevich <vladislav.yasevich@hp.com>
      b6157d8e
  27. 11 10月, 2007 1 次提交
  29. 31 8月, 2007 1 次提交
  31. 30 8月, 2007 1 次提交
  33. 05 5月, 2007 1 次提交
    • V
      [SCTP]: Set assoc_id correctly during INIT collision. · 07d93967
      由 Vlad Yasevich 提交于 
      During the INIT/COOKIE-ACK collision cases, it's possible to get
into a situation where the association id is not yet set at the time
of the user event generation.  As a result, user events have an
association id set to 0 which will confuse applications.

This happens if we hit case B of duplicate cookie processing.
In the particular example found and provided by Oscar Isaula
<Oscar.Isaula@motorola.com>, flow looks like this:
A				B
---- INIT------->  (lost)
	    <---------INIT------
---- INIT-ACK--->
	    <------ Cookie ECHO

When the Cookie Echo is received, we end up trying to update the
association that was created on A as a result of the (lost) INIT,
but that association doesn't have the ID set yet.
Signed-off-by: NVlad Yasevich <vladislav.yasevich@hp.com>
Signed-off-by: NDavid S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
      07d93967
  35. 26 4月, 2007 2 次提交
  37. 11 2月, 2007 1 次提交
  39. 31 1月, 2007 1 次提交
  41. 24 1月, 2007 1 次提交
  43. 03 12月, 2006 8 次提交
  45. 22 7月, 2006 1 次提交
  47. 20 5月, 2006 1 次提交
  49. 18 1月, 2006 1 次提交
  51. 10 1月, 2006 1 次提交
  53. 04 1月, 2006 1 次提交