On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 01:30:55PM -0500, Vlad Yasevich 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.
>
> -vlad
>
IIRC, BSD is where this patch came from initially.
Neil
> > 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
>
--
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
