Message ID | 3eb95fd0-2046-c000-9c0b-c7c7e05ce04a@163.com (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
State | Changes Requested |
Delegated to: | Netdev Maintainers |
Headers | show |
Series | [net-next] tcp: make tcp_rcv_state_process() drop monitor friendly | expand |
On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 6:05 AM Jianguo Wu <wujianguo106@163.com> wrote: > > From: Jianguo Wu <wujianguo@chinatelecom.cn> > > In tcp_rcv_state_process(), should not call tcp_drop() for same case, > like after process ACK packet in TCP_LAST_ACK state, it should call > consume_skb() instead of tcp_drop() to be drop monitor friendly, > otherwise every last ack will be report as dropped packet by drop monitor. > > Signed-off-by: Jianguo Wu <wujianguo@chinatelecom.cn> > --- 1) net-next is closed 2) Same remarks as for the other patch. You mark the packet as consumed, while maybe we had to throw away some payload from it ? You will have to wait for net-next being open, then send patches with one change at a time, with clear explanations and possibly packetdrill tests. I am concerned about all these patches making future backports difficult because of merge conflicts.
Hi, Thanks for your reply. This is more complicated than I thought, i will do some more dig. 在 2022/3/23 21:40, Eric Dumazet 写道: > On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 6:05 AM Jianguo Wu <wujianguo106@163.com> wrote: >> >> From: Jianguo Wu <wujianguo@chinatelecom.cn> >> >> In tcp_rcv_state_process(), should not call tcp_drop() for same case, >> like after process ACK packet in TCP_LAST_ACK state, it should call >> consume_skb() instead of tcp_drop() to be drop monitor friendly, >> otherwise every last ack will be report as dropped packet by drop monitor. >> >> Signed-off-by: Jianguo Wu <wujianguo@chinatelecom.cn> >> --- > > 1) net-next is closed > > 2) Same remarks as for the other patch. > You mark the packet as consumed, while maybe we had to throw away > some payload from it ? > > You will have to wait for net-next being open, > then send patches with one change at a time, with clear explanations > and possibly packetdrill tests. > > I am concerned about all these patches making future backports > difficult because of merge conflicts.
diff --git a/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c b/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c index 2088f93..feb6f83 100644 --- a/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c +++ b/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c @@ -6574,7 +6574,8 @@ int tcp_rcv_state_process(struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb) inet_csk_reset_keepalive_timer(sk, tmo); } else { tcp_time_wait(sk, TCP_FIN_WAIT2, tmo); - goto discard; + consume_skb(skb); + return 0; } break; } @@ -6582,7 +6583,8 @@ int tcp_rcv_state_process(struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb) case TCP_CLOSING: if (tp->snd_una == tp->write_seq) { tcp_time_wait(sk, TCP_TIME_WAIT, 0); - goto discard; + consume_skb(skb); + return 0; } break; @@ -6590,7 +6592,8 @@ int tcp_rcv_state_process(struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb) if (tp->snd_una == tp->write_seq) { tcp_update_metrics(sk); tcp_done(sk); - goto discard; + consume_skb(skb); + return 0; } break; }