LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Michael Tuexen <tuexen@fh-muenster.de>
To: Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@gmail.com>
Cc: Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@redhat.com>,
	Sun Paul <paulrbk@gmail.com>,
	linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Question on SCTP ABORT chunk is generated when the association_max_retrans is reached
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 19:36:38 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <628C9A19-FFC7-4D98-9FBB-D59F45BF6915@fh-muenster.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <54C2935F.2000105@gmail.com>


> On 23 Jan 2015, at 19:30, Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On 01/23/2015 12:10 PM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>> On 01/23/2015 05:05 PM, Vlad Yasevich wrote:
>>> On 01/23/2015 06:50 AM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>>>> On 01/23/2015 11:25 AM, Sun Paul wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>> I would like to check the behave in LKSCTP.
>>>>> 
>>>>> we are running DIAMETER message over SCTP, and we have set the
>>>>> parameter "net.sctp.association_max_retrans = 4" in the LinuxOS.
>>>>> 
>>>>> We noticed that when remote peer have retry to send the same request
>>>>> for 4 times, the LKSCTP will initiate an ABORT chunk with reason
>>>>> "association exceeded its max_retrans count".
>>>>> 
>>>>> We would like to know whether this is the correct behavior? is there
>>>>> any other option that we can alter in order to avoid the ABORT chunk
>>>>> being sent?
>>>> 
>>>> I don't recall the RFC saying to send an ABORT, but let me double
>>>> check in the mean time.
>>> 
>>> The RFC is silent on the matter.  The abort got added in 3.8 so
>>> it's been there for a while.
>> 
>> I see, commit de4594a51c90 ("sctp: send abort chunk when max_retrans
>> exceeded") added the behaviour.
>> 
>>>> Hmm, untested, but could you try something like that?
>>>> 
>>>> diff --git a/net/sctp/sm_sideeffect.c b/net/sctp/sm_sideeffect.c
>>>> index fef2acd..5ce198d 100644
>>>> --- a/net/sctp/sm_sideeffect.c
>>>> +++ b/net/sctp/sm_sideeffect.c
>>>> @@ -584,7 +584,8 @@ static void sctp_cmd_assoc_failed(sctp_cmd_seq_t *commands,
>>>>          sctp_add_cmd_sf(commands, SCTP_CMD_EVENT_ULP,
>>>>                  SCTP_ULPEVENT(event));
>>>> 
>>>> -    if (asoc->overall_error_count >= asoc->max_retrans) {
>>>> +    if (asoc->overall_error_count >= asoc->max_retrans &&
>>>> +        error != SCTP_ERROR_NO_ERROR) {
>>>>          abort = sctp_make_violation_max_retrans(asoc, chunk);
>>>>          if (abort)
>>>>              sctp_add_cmd_sf(commands, SCTP_CMD_REPLY,
>>> 
>>> This would pretty much stop all ABORTs due to excessive rtx.  Might
>>> as well take the code out :).
>>> 
>>> I was a bit concerned about this ABORT when it went in.
>> 
>> So effectively, if I understand the argument from the commit, the
>> assumption is that the ABORT would never reach the peer anyway, but
>> is a way for tcpdump users to see on the wire that rtx limit has
>> been exceeded and since there's not mentioned anything in the RFC
>> about this, it doesn't break it. Hm.
>> 
> 
> Additionally I seem to recall BSD sending this type of ABORT for pretty
> much the same reason.
Yepp.

Best regards
Michael
> 
> -vlad
> 
>> Sun Paul, what exactly broke in your scenario? Can you be more explicit?
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Daniel
> 
> 


  reply	other threads:[~2015-01-23 19:07 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <CAFXGftKp3=OfjkCVBuR-zM3+uZ42Sk_9i2UjAHBNnbX=hQJwpA@mail.gmail.com>
2015-01-23 10:25 ` Fwd: " Sun Paul
2015-01-23 11:50   ` Daniel Borkmann
2015-01-23 16:05     ` Vlad Yasevich
2015-01-23 17:10       ` Daniel Borkmann
2015-01-23 18:30         ` Vlad Yasevich
2015-01-23 18:36           ` Michael Tuexen [this message]
2015-01-26 13:47           ` Neil Horman
2015-01-23 18:36         ` Michael Tuexen
2015-01-23 19:05           ` Daniel Borkmann
2015-01-26  1:27             ` Sun Paul
2015-01-26 11:46               ` Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
2015-01-26 13:17                 ` Sun Paul
2015-01-26 13:30                   ` Daniel Borkmann
2015-01-23 16:08   ` Fwd: " Vlad Yasevich

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=628C9A19-FFC7-4D98-9FBB-D59F45BF6915@fh-muenster.de \
    --to=tuexen@fh-muenster.de \
    --cc=dborkman@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=paulrbk@gmail.com \
    --cc=vyasevich@gmail.com \
    --subject='Re: Question on SCTP ABORT chunk is generated when the association_max_retrans is reached' \
    /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

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).