From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9795C433DB for ; Wed, 13 Jan 2021 20:29:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 755FE2343E for ; Wed, 13 Jan 2021 20:29:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728993AbhAMU25 (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Jan 2021 15:28:57 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:58578 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728842AbhAMU24 (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Jan 2021 15:28:56 -0500 Received: from mail-ot1-x335.google.com (mail-ot1-x335.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::335]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 56B06C061794; Wed, 13 Jan 2021 12:28:16 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ot1-x335.google.com with SMTP id d20so3175052otl.3; Wed, 13 Jan 2021 12:28:16 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=jLUkwOEZZymFceGAr0IzTr+GxfxreGrJDbxkHS4zq74=; b=tlDHxSM2utOECZ2jXUxVIwv7eiLTlvDuI6TdNu/mYi+VyZpy5ktEvuzKtPJu+KlFNb rB9IoFPn3iiSKM5nd2OX81f1hwLlQ8PwwrQOWoaypAJluOqZycGO1v234IUs1MDGYElc ajpZ6xLiYZu7hbtaIf4t7Bzh1d8X1ONklu60X/92OJR8CSKXr6e3GVm4+ve/vBSWv4JK NGmaLb/TTYtpLF83pTBY5pAN+OHBr3bNMkll0SkXN8iJo7z+xHT9QdtdAYW4n/+ofqFy 0vqBFsOJhcstoRE/VoNRL9LOht5uV2RnEKK0unxpbpgGjU+N1qCNtJw/lbkaVwk5njjP FyNQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=jLUkwOEZZymFceGAr0IzTr+GxfxreGrJDbxkHS4zq74=; b=KgV6lM81CSYCU+bF0VipgzqnAWka7vWVsbMWEEvg3XGu0V8ZbeX5ehLFF70jDQij8R rNzMc6EQd5ZY17TEWaewRGXboYJ/2CIPFi+2BOKg4JCZJ+fkRIQYrdHyzVgf0bcT0uKQ OOGU8cUnd360RpLmAq+jTYzh8pbno7DxiGUt49wCxArD2QjPVsf4rutrdEKNxFY1W2H9 rHEbLRaV0+4oU4bVTivN3cHHqx9IFHMsfRhbx+nMpLHTl9RE8a1ffpjZvqn/j4C3tlJO qVvb7sA6TGlYAyPf2n6G3ZmMPGLfeAEKXgi27aWd4D/w1hn9Fjwv99M4eLPKN/WaaTqo yf9w== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530v12OOGNEiDrrZGkc0DKO9ZyCsp37RmL0BntxxMNP7beKFvLVx wQcZH7BM4XRqKwjY8o/EmNY= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxHGKCERQPNJFDJNIheC9+ncaoOI2QQQsV+nB3QYdld23m76nOr0TtBj7GrH+A/rmluGraJXQ== X-Received: by 2002:a9d:65d7:: with SMTP id z23mr2459397oth.131.1610569695835; Wed, 13 Jan 2021 12:28:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (99-6-134-177.lightspeed.snmtca.sbcglobal.net. [99.6.134.177]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id c18sm619625oib.31.2021.01.13.12.28.14 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 13 Jan 2021 12:28:15 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2021 12:28:12 -0800 From: Enke Chen To: Eric Dumazet Cc: Yuchung Cheng , "David S. Miller" , Alexey Kuznetsov , Hideaki YOSHIFUJI , Jakub Kicinski , netdev , LKML , Neal Cardwell , enkechen2020@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] tcp: keepalive fixes Message-ID: <20210113202812.GA2746@localhost.localdomain> References: <20210112192544.GA12209@localhost.localdomain> <20210113200626.GB2274@localhost.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20210113200626.GB2274@localhost.localdomain> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 12:06:27PM -0800, Enke Chen wrote: > Hi, Eric: > > Just to clarify: the issues for tcp keepalive and TCP_USER_TIMEOUT are > separate isues, and the fixes would not conflict afaik. > > Thanks. -- Enke I have posted patches for both issues, and there is no conflict between the patches. Thanks. -- Enke > > On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 11:52:43PM +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 11:48 PM Yuchung Cheng wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 2:31 PM Enke Chen wrote: > > > > > > > > From: Enke Chen > > > > > > > > In this patch two issues with TCP keepalives are fixed: > > > > > > > > 1) TCP keepalive does not timeout when there are data waiting to be > > > > delivered and then the connection got broken. The TCP keepalive > > > > timeout is not evaluated in that condition. > > > hi enke > > > Do you have an example to demonstrate this issue -- in theory when > > > there is data inflight, an RTO timer should be pending (which > > > considers user-timeout setting). based on the user-timeout description > > > (man tcp), the user timeout should abort the socket per the specified > > > time after data commences. some data would help to understand the > > > issue. > > > > > > > +1 > > > > A packetdrill test would be ideal. > > > > Also, given that there is this ongoing issue with TCP_USER_TIMEOUT, > > lets not mix things > > or risk added work for backports to stable versions.