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.
-vlad
> Sun Paul, what exactly broke in your scenario? Can you be more explicit?
>
> Thanks,
> Daniel
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sctp" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
