Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] sctp: check the rto_min and rto_max

[Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@redhat.com>]

On 12/07/2013 08:01 PM, Vlad Yasevich wrote:
> On 12/07/2013 07:43 AM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>> On 12/07/2013 08:17 AM, Wang Weidong wrote:
>>> rto_min should be smaller than rto_max while rto_max should be larger
>>> than rto_min. Add two proc_handler for the checking. Add the check in
>>> sctp_setsockopt_rtoinfo.
>>>
>>> Suggested-by: Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@gmail.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Wang Weidong <wangweidong1@huawei.com>
>>> ---
>>
>> Thanks Wang, also for your second patch.
>>
>> Second one looks good to me, thanks for the cleanup!
>>
>> I was wondering where 86400000 comes from? Looking through the git
>> history didn't give much clues and the RFC4960 neither. Clearly,
>> section 15 of RFC4960 *recommends* as initial values ...
>>
>>    RTO.Initial - 3 seconds
>>    RTO.Min - 1 second
>>    RTO.Max - 60 seconds
>>
>> ... which we have as constants in [1] and are assigned to globals
>> initially in [2,3] with those recommended values. That's all good.
>>
>> But still [not *directly* related to your patch though], where does
>> 86400000 come from? I expect that's for the max SCTP heartbeat
>> interval or max cookie lifetime?
>
> No, initially it was defined as rto_timer_max and was the upper bound
> for the rto timer.   When you think about it, it's a bit ridiculous
> really.  What you are saying is that your rto timer is allowed to
> grow as long as 1 day, so you would at an absolute maximum retransmit
> one packet per day :)

Exactly, maybe initial SCTP implementors already took into account
we could have SCTP connections to other galaxies, but clearly untested
so far? :)

I think we should be absolutely fine with a max configurable upper
limit of twice the recommended RTO.Max value from the RFC.

> I don't think this limit is specified anywhere as is though.  It
> was something that's been there since the 2.5 days.
>
> -vlad