linux-kselftest.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: <sjpark@amazon.com>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>
Cc: "'sjpark@amazon.com'" <sjpark@amazon.com>,
	"edumazet@google.com" <edumazet@google.com>,
	"davem@davemloft.net" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	"shuah@kernel.org" <shuah@kernel.org>,
	"netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org"
	<linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"sj38.park@gmail.com" <sj38.park@gmail.com>,
	"aams@amazon.com" <aams@amazon.com>,
	SeongJae Park <sjpark@amazon.de>
Subject: Re: RE: [PATCH 0/3] Fix reconnection latency caused by FIN/ACK handling race
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2020 16:05:44 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200131150544.26333-1-sjpark@amazon.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <dc37fb0dad3c4a5f9fd88eea89d81908@AcuMS.aculab.com> (raw)

On Fri, 31 Jan 2020 14:00:27 +0000 David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM> wrote:

> From: sjpark@amazon.com
> > Sent: 31 January 2020 12:24
> ...
> > The acks in lines 6 and 8 are the acks.  If the line 8 packet is
> > processed before the line 6 packet, it will be just ignored as it is not
> > a expected packet, and the later process of the line 6 packet will
> > change the status of Process A to FIN_WAIT_2, but as it has already
> > handled line 8 packet, it will not go to TIME_WAIT and thus will not
> > send the line 10 packet to Process B.  Thus, Process B will left in
> > CLOSE_WAIT status, as below.
> > 
> > 	 00 (Process A)				(Process B)
> > 	 01 ESTABLISHED				ESTABLISHED
> > 	 02 close()
> > 	 03 FIN_WAIT_1
> > 	 04 		---FIN-->
> > 	 05 					CLOSE_WAIT
> > 	 06 				(<--ACK---)
> > 	 07	  			(<--FIN/ACK---)
> > 	 08 				(fired in right order)
> > 	 09 		<--FIN/ACK---
> > 	 10 		<--ACK---
> > 	 11 		(processed in reverse order)
> > 	 12 FIN_WAIT_2
> 
> Why doesn't A treat the FIN/ACK (09) as valid (as if
> the ACK had got lost) and then ignore the ACK (10) because
> it refers to a closed socket?

Because the TCP protocol (RFC 793) doesn't have such speculation.  TCP is
stateful protocol.  Thus, packets arrived in unexpected state are not required
to be respected, AFAIU.

> 
> I presume that B sends two ACKs (06 and 07) because it can
> sit in an intermediate state and the first ACK stops the FIN
> being resent?

I think there is no such presume in the protocol, either.

> 
> I've implemented lots of protocols in my time, but not TCP.

If you find anything I'm misunderstanding, please don't hesitate to yell at me.
Hope the previous discussion[1] regarding this issue to be helpful.


Thanks,
SeongJae Park

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20200129171403.3926-1-sjpark@amazon.com/

> 
> 	David
> 
> -
> Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
> Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)

      reply	other threads:[~2020-01-31 15:06 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-01-31 12:24 [PATCH 0/3] Fix reconnection latency caused by FIN/ACK handling race sjpark
2020-01-31 12:24 ` [PATCH 1/3] net/ipv4/inet_timewait_sock: Fix inconsistent comments sjpark
2020-01-31 14:54   ` Eric Dumazet
2020-01-31 15:09     ` sjpark
2020-01-31 12:24 ` [PATCH 2/3] tcp: Reduce SYN resend delay if a suspicous ACK is received sjpark
2020-01-31 15:01   ` Eric Dumazet
2020-01-31 16:12     ` sjpark
2020-01-31 16:55       ` Eric Dumazet
2020-01-31 17:05         ` sjpark
2020-01-31 17:08           ` Eric Dumazet
2020-01-31 15:10   ` Neal Cardwell
2020-01-31 18:12     ` Eric Dumazet
2020-01-31 22:11       ` Neal Cardwell
2020-01-31 22:17         ` SeongJae Park
2020-02-01  3:55           ` Neal Cardwell
2020-02-01  6:08             ` SeongJae Park
2020-02-01 13:30               ` Neal Cardwell
2020-01-31 22:53         ` Eric Dumazet
2020-02-03 15:40           ` David Laight
2020-02-03 15:54             ` Eric Dumazet
2020-01-31 12:24 ` [PATCH 3/3] selftests: net: Add FIN_ACK processing order related latency spike test sjpark
2020-01-31 14:56   ` Eric Dumazet
2020-01-31 15:13     ` sjpark
2020-01-31 14:00 ` [PATCH 0/3] Fix reconnection latency caused by FIN/ACK handling race David Laight
2020-01-31 15:05   ` sjpark [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20200131150544.26333-1-sjpark@amazon.com \
    --to=sjpark@amazon.com \
    --cc=David.Laight@ACULAB.COM \
    --cc=aams@amazon.com \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=edumazet@google.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=shuah@kernel.org \
    --cc=sj38.park@gmail.com \
    --cc=sjpark@amazon.de \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).