As said, this is sendfile(). I do not have control on the size of the chunks sent. sendfile is also using TCP.
So, sendfile cannot take advantage of PMTUD? On Sun, Jun 4, 2023 at 5:33 PM Xiang Xiao <xiaoxiang781...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Jun 4, 2023 at 10:23 PM Fotis Panagiotopoulos <f.j.pa...@gmail.com > > > wrote: > > > I am trying this new PMTUD functionality, but it seems it doesn't work. > > > > I have configured: > > CONFIG_NET_ICMP_PMTU_ENTRIES = 10 > > CONFIG_NET_ICMP_PMTU_TIMEOUT = 10 > > > > Again I see lots of segments being sent (all with size 1400), and all of > > them are responded with the same ICMP reply. > > A couple of retransmissions are attempted, and then the connection is > > reset. > > > > The option can discover the minimal MTU from the source to the destination. > You need to use PMTU to split your data into small packets(<= PMTU) by > yourself to improve the efficiency. > > > > > > I try again the same procedure (now that the system had the chance to > > discover the maximum PMTU), but it still fails. > > Again all segments have a size of 1400, instead of less. > > > > If you don't split your package to fit MTU by yourself, you have > to enable NET_IPFRAG. But I would suggest that.you switch UDP to TCP > because the protocol you implement on top of UDP is likely very > inefficient. > > > > > > I am using sendfile() in case this matters. > > > > On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 12:28 AM Fotis Panagiotopoulos < > > f.j.pa...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > I can see that there are two different problems with MTU. > > > They are completely independent from each other, so let's start with > the > > > simple case first. > > > > > > I am testing on an STM32F427, using Ethernet. > > > > > > As previously noted, the following code will cause the running task to > > > hang. > > > > > > netlib_set_mtu(CONFIG_NETIF_DEV_NAME, 1500); > > > > > > int sd = socket(AF_INET, SOCK_DGRAM, 0); > > > > > > struct sockaddr_in server; > > > server.sin_family = AF_INET; > > > server.sin_port = 1000; > > > server.sin_addr.s_addr = inet_addr("192.168.1.235"); > > > > > > uint8_t * data = malloc(2048); > > > memset(data, 0xAA, 2048); > > > > > > sendto(sd, data, 2048, 0, (struct sockaddr*)&server, sizeof(server)); > > > > > > close(sd); > > > > > > As you can see, the MTU is set to 1500, and then I try to send a UDP > > > datagram with a larger size (2048). > > > Indeed `devif_send()` fails, and the aforementioned semaphore is never > > > posted. > > > > > > (This is without buffering in UTP, in case this is important). > > > > > > This draft PR, provides a solution to the issue. > > > https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/9423 > > > > > > If this is correct, I will also check buffered UDP, and other uses of > > > devif_send(). > > > > > > Alternatively, devif_send() may be changed to actually return an error > > > code (instead of returning void), so improved error handling can take > > place. > > > > > > > > > On Mon, May 29, 2023 at 1:41 PM Fotis Panagiotopoulos < > > f.j.pa...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > >> The failure scenario is a bit more complicated... > > >> > > >> Give me some time and I will provide a correct and reproducible > example, > > >> with a clear explanation. > > >> > > >> On Mon, May 29, 2023, 13:27 Fotis Panagiotopoulos < > f.j.pa...@gmail.com> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >>> > sendfile should return an error in this case, but senfile should > only > > >>> be > > >>> > used with TCP, not UDP, since sendfile doesn't have any logic to > ack > > or > > >>> > retry.. > > >>> > > >>> Sorry if this wasn't clear. This last test was with plain old > > `send()`... > > >>> > > >>> I opened a UDP socket, and used `send()` to transmit a buffer larger > > >>> than the MTU. > > >>> Instead of getting an error, the application hangs indefinitely. > > >>> `devif_send()` is called periodically, but of course it always fails. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> On Mon, May 29, 2023 at 1:13 PM Xiang Xiao < > xiaoxiang781...@gmail.com> > > >>> wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> On Mon, May 29, 2023 at 5:02 PM Fotis Panagiotopoulos < > > >>>> f.j.pa...@gmail.com> > > >>>> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> > > You need to enable IP fragmentation in this case, which is also > > >>>> added > > >>>> > > recently and disabled by default: > > >>>> > > https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/8059 > > >>>> > <https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/8059> > > >>>> > > Otherwise, any packet bigger than MTU will be dropped silently. > > >>>> > > > >>>> > Yes, this is the expected behavior. > > >>>> > But, instead of dropping the packet, the system hangs because the > > >>>> semaphore > > >>>> > is never posted. > > >>>> > It just tries endlessly to call devif_send() which always fails. > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> sendfile should return an error in this case, but senfile should > only > > be > > >>>> used with TCP, not UDP, since sendfile doesn't have any logic to ack > > or > > >>>> retry.. > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > On Mon, May 29, 2023 at 11:42 AM Xiang Xiao < > > >>>> xiaoxiang781...@gmail.com> > > >>>> > wrote: > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > On Sun, May 28, 2023 at 11:55 PM Fotis Panagiotopoulos < > > >>>> > > f.j.pa...@gmail.com> > > >>>> > > wrote: > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > While experimenting with MTU, and checking the stability of my > > >>>> system, > > >>>> > I > > >>>> > > > noticed the following. > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > I try to send a UDP datagram that is larger than the > configured > > >>>> MTU. > > >>>> > > > In this case, the offending thread seems to hang indefinitely > > (or > > >>>> at > > >>>> > > least > > >>>> > > > waiting for a very long timeout?) > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > You need to enable IP fragmentation in this case, which is also > > >>>> added > > >>>> > > recently and disabled by default: > > >>>> > > https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/8059 > > >>>> > > Otherwise, any packet bigger than MTU will be dropped silently. > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > The problem seems to be this line: > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > https://github.com/apache/nuttx/blob/master/net/udp/udp_sendto_unbuffered.c#L197 > > >>>> > > > `devif_send()` fails because the datagram is too large, but > > >>>> > > > `pstate->st_sem` is never posted (the code returns > immediately). > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > This leaves the sending task to be blocked here: > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > https://github.com/apache/nuttx/blob/master/net/udp/udp_sendto_unbuffered.c#L469 > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > Shouldn't this failure also post the semaphore? > > >>>> > > > And let the code proceed returning an error in `send()`? > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > On Sun, May 28, 2023 at 5:26 PM Fotis Panagiotopoulos < > > >>>> > > f.j.pa...@gmail.com > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > wrote: > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > On Sat, May 27, 2023 at 5:35 PM Xiang Xiao < > > >>>> > xiaoxiang781...@gmail.com> > > >>>> > > > > wrote: > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > >> On Sat, May 27, 2023 at 8:19 PM Fotis Panagiotopoulos < > > >>>> > > > >> f.j.pa...@gmail.com> > > >>>> > > > >> wrote: > > >>>> > > > >> > > >>>> > > > >> > Hello, > > >>>> > > > >> > > > >>>> > > > >> > I encounter some problems using sendfile(). > > >>>> > > > >> > > > >>>> > > > >> > I am using sendfile to... send a file to a remote server, > > >>>> with my > > >>>> > > own > > >>>> > > > >> > implementation of an FTP client. > > >>>> > > > >> > sendfile() indeed starts to transmit chunks of the file, > > but > > >>>> as I > > >>>> > > see > > >>>> > > > in > > >>>> > > > >> > Wireshark, I get an ICMP response "Destination > unreachable > > >>>> > > > >> (Fragmentation > > >>>> > > > >> > needed)". > > >>>> > > > >> > I have verified that the Ethrenet MTU is correctly set to > > >>>> 1500. > > >>>> > > > >> > > > >>>> > > > >> > I tried lowering the MTU a lot (1000 bytes), and the > > problem > > >>>> is > > >>>> > > > solved. > > >>>> > > > >> > Communication succeeds. > > >>>> > > > >> > > > >>>> > > > >> > This raises some questions, and indicates some potential > > >>>> bugs: > > >>>> > > > >> > > > >>>> > > > >> > 1. Why is there a problem with MTU in the first place? > > >>>> Shouldn't > > >>>> > MTU > > >>>> > > > be > > >>>> > > > >> > negotiated? (Is this functionality available in NuttX?) > > >>>> > > > >> > > > >>>> > > > >> > > >>>> > > > >> MTU isn't negotiated but a physical attribute of your > > >>>> > > transport(netdev). > > >>>> > > > >> On > > >>>> > > > >> the other hand, PMTU could be discovered from ICMP. > > >>>> > > > >> > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > I am not very familiar with MTU negotiation, so it seems > that > > it > > >>>> > > doesn't > > >>>> > > > > happen in the network layer that I thought... > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > >> > > >>>> > > > >> > > >>>> > > > >> > 2. Why is the ICMP response not handled? It seems that > > >>>> sendfile() > > >>>> > > just > > >>>> > > > >> > ignores it and continues to send chunks, nevertheless. > > >>>> > > > >> > > > >>>> > > > >> > > >>>> > > > >> It is handled by the recent addition here: > > >>>> > > > >> https://github.com/apachey/nuttx/pull/9254 > > >>>> > > > >> <https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/9254> > > >>>> > > > >> but this feature is disabled by default, you have to enable > > it > > >>>> > > > manually.. > > >>>> > > > >> > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > I will definitely take a look at this. Thank you. > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > >> > > >>>> > > > >> > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > >> > 3. Why sendfile() sends TCP segments without receiving > any > > >>>> ACKs > > >>>> > > back? > > >>>> > > > >> > AFAIK, depending on the configuration, TCP allows at most > > two > > >>>> > > pending > > >>>> > > > >> > segments on the wire. But I see dozens of them, till > > sendfile > > >>>> > > finally > > >>>> > > > >> > fails. > > >>>> > > > >> > > > >>>> > > > >> > > > >>>> > > > >> Why only two segments? TCP can send packages until the > slide > > >>>> window > > >>>> > is > > >>>> > > > >> full. > > >>>> > > > >> > > >>>> > > > >> Disregard this. I was confused with delayed ACKs. Which is > a > > >>>> > > receiver's > > >>>> > > > > functionality, not a sender's... > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > >> > > >>>> > > > >> > This last point is also verified in my MQTT client. > > >>>> > > > >> > I have seen NuttX TCP allowing sending lots of TCP > segments > > >>>> > without > > >>>> > > > >> ACKing > > >>>> > > > >> > the previous data. > > >>>> > > > >> > > > >>>> > > > >> > So, is there any insight on the above? > > >>>> > > > >> > Is my configuration wrong, or is there anything wrong > with > > >>>> TCP? > > >>>> > > > >> > > > >>>> > > > >> > Thank you. > > >>>> > > > >> > > > >>>> > > > >> > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > >>> > > >