From: Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@google.com>
To: Guillaume Nault <gnault@redhat.com>
Cc: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@kernel.org>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org>,
Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@google.com>,
Tom Williams <Tom.D.Williams@morganstanley.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v2] tcp: Fix dup-ack detection on non-SACK bidirectional data transfer.
Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2026 16:22:53 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <audm81hsgydhfWn3@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <6426d558e45fc6ab724c40af62e4a8793215dd8a.1793219189.git.gnault@redhat.com>
On Wed, 28 Oct 2026 21:32:35 +0100, Guillaume Nault wrote:
> When receiving a pure ack from a peer that also sends data, we can
> have SEG.SEQ > SND.WL1, even though the segment contains no data. This
> makes tcp_may_update_window() return true (because of the
> "after(ack_seq, tp->snd_wl1)" condition), and tcp_ack_update_window()
> then adds FLAG_WIN_UPDATE to the segment set of flags, even when
> there's no window update.
>
> Since FLAG_WIN_UPDATE prevents the segment from being considered as
> dup-ack (as it's part of FLAG_NOT_DUP), this can inhibit fast
> retransmit on non-SACK connections, making recovery very slow as it
> now entirely relies on RTO.
>
> The "DUPLICATE ACKNOWLEDGMENT" definition of RFC 5681, section 2,
> says that lack of window update is a necessary condition for a dup ack:
> "(e) the advertised window in the incoming acknowledgment equals the
> advertised window in the last incoming acknowledgment.". Spurious
> window updates can thus prevent dup ack detection and, in the end, fast
> retransmit.
>
> Avoid this scenario by setting FLAG_WIN_UPDATE only when a window
> update actually occurs. Pure acks with SEG.SEQ > SND.WL1 can now
> be detected as dup-ack and trigger fast retransmission.
>
> Also, stop setting FLAG_WIN_UPDATE in tcp_ack()'s header prediction
> path. One of the conditions for header prediction to happen is that
> received segments don't trigger a window update. This flag update was
> thus wrong to begin with. Now that tcp_ack_update_window() sets
> FLAG_WIN_UPDATE only if a window update actually occurred, we need the
> header prediction path to stop reporting spurious window updates too.
> Otherwise BPF programs would get inconsistent window update information
> (CA_ACK_WIN_UPDATE) between fast an slow paths.
>
> Finally, add FLAG_SND_UNA_ADVANCED to the definition of FLAG_NOT_DUP.
> This is necessary for the case where an incoming segment acknowledges
> less than a full segment of the retransmit queue. Such segments were
> not considered dubious by tcp_ack_is_dubious() because of the spurious
> FLAG_WIN_UPDATE flag, which prevented the segment from being seen as a
> duplicate ack. Now that FLAG_WIN_UPDATE doesn't cover this scenario
> anymore, we need another way to mark these acks as non-duplicate.
> Adding FLAG_SND_UNA_ADVANCED to FLAG_NOT_DUP is the natural way of
> doing this, since, by definition, a segment advancing SND.UNA, even by
> a small amount, cannot be a duplicate ack.
>
> A side effect of this patch is that repeated zero window acks received
> from peer can now be considered duplicate acks (because of the the
> "|| !win" condition in tcp_may_update_window()). Therefore, they can
> now trigger fast retransmission and fast recovery, including congestion
> window reduction, when the peer is stalled. This is RFC compliant and
> shouldn't have any negative effect.
>
> Add packetdrill selftest. Before this patch, the 1001:2001 segment was
> retransmitted upon RTO, now it's sent right after reception of the
> third duplicate ack.
>
> Thanks to Tom Williams for the investigation help and initial
> reproducer.
>
> Reported-by: Tom Williams <Tom.D.Williams@MorganStanley.com>
> Fixes: 1da177e4c3f4 ("Linux-2.6.12-rc2")
> Signed-off-by: Guillaume Nault <gnault@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@google.com>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-11-01 16:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-10-28 20:32 [PATCH net v2] tcp: Fix dup-ack detection on non-SACK bidirectional data transfer Guillaume Nault
2026-11-01 16:22 ` Kuniyuki Iwashima [this message]
2026-11-01 17:51 ` Neal Cardwell
2026-11-01 18:35 ` Eric Dumazet
2026-11-04 13:50 ` patchwork-bot+netdevbpf
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=audm81hsgydhfWn3@google.com \
--to=kuniyu@google.com \
--cc=Tom.D.Williams@morganstanley.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=edumazet@kernel.org \
--cc=gnault@redhat.com \
--cc=horms@kernel.org \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=ncardwell@google.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.