Hi,
I also tried to reproduce this in a targeted way, and run into the
same difficulty as you: satisfying the first condition “
(sk->sk_wmem_queued >> 1) > limit “.
I will not have bandwidth the coming days to try and reproduce it in
this way. Maybe simply forcing a very small send buffer using sysctl
net.ipv4.tcp_wmem might even do the trick?
I suspect that the bug is easier to trigger with the MPTCP patch like
I did originally, due to the way this patch manages the tcp subflow
buffers (it can temporarily overfill the buffers, satisfying that
first condition more often).
another thing, the stacktrace you shared before seems caused by
another issue (corrupted socket?), it will not be solved by the patch
we submitted.
kind regards,
Tim
On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 5:22 AM maowenan <maowenan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Tim,
>
>
>
> I try to reproduce it with packetdrill or user application, but I can’t.
>
> The first condition “ (sk->sk_wmem_queued >> 1) > limit “ can’t be satisfied,
>
> This condition is to avoid tiny SO_SNDBUF values set by user.
>
> It also adds the some room due to the fact that tcp_sendmsg()
>
> and tcp_sendpage() might overshoot sk_wmem_queued by about one full
>
> TSO skb (64KB size).
>
>
>
> limit = sk->sk_sndbuf + 2 * SKB_TRUESIZE(GSO_MAX_SIZE);
>
> if (unlikely((sk->sk_wmem_queued >> 1) > limit &&
>
> skb != tcp_rtx_queue_head(sk) &&
>
> skb != tcp_rtx_queue_tail(sk))) {
>
> NET_INC_STATS(sock_net(sk), LINUX_MIB_TCPWQUEUETOOBIG);
>
> return -ENOMEM;
>
> }
>
>
>
> Can you try to reproduce it with packetdrill or C socket application?
>
>
--
Tim Froidcoeur | R&D engineer HAG
tim.froidcoeur@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Tessares SA | Hybrid Access Solutions
www.tessares.net
1 Avenue Jean Monnet, 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
--
Disclaimer: https://www.tessares.net/mail-disclaimer/
<https://www.tessares.net/mail-disclaimer/>
