xufeng zhang <xufeng.zh...@windriver.com> wrote:
>On 07/24/2012 10:27 AM, Vlad Yasevich wrote:
>> xufeng zhang<xufeng.zh...@windriver.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On 07/19/2012 01:57 PM, xufengzhang.m...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> When "Invalid Stream Identifier" ERROR happens after process the
>>>> received DATA chunks, this ERROR chunk is enqueued into outqueue
>>>> before SACK chunk, so when bundling ERROR chunk with SACK chunk,
>>>> the ERROR chunk is always placed first in the packet because of
>>>> the chunk's position in the outqueue.
>>>> This violates sctp specification:
>>>> RFC 4960 6.5. Stream Identifier and Stream Sequence Number
>>>> ...The endpoint may bundle the ERROR chunk in the same
>>>> packet as the SACK as long as the ERROR follows the SACK.
>>>> So we must place SACK first when bundling "Invalid Stream
>Identifier"
>>>> ERROR and SACK in one packet.
>>>> Although we can do that by enqueue SACK chunk into outqueue before
>>>> ERROR chunk, it will violate the side-effect interpreter
>processing.
>>>> It's easy to do this job when dequeue chunks from the outqueue,
>>>> by this way, we introduce a flag 'has_isi_err' which indicate
>>>> whether or not the "Invalid Stream Identifier" ERROR happens.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Xufeng Zhang<xufeng.zh...@windriver.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> include/net/sctp/structs.h | 2 ++
>>>> net/sctp/output.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>> 2 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/include/net/sctp/structs.h
>b/include/net/sctp/structs.h
>>>> index 88949a9..5adf4de 100644
>>>> --- a/include/net/sctp/structs.h
>>>> +++ b/include/net/sctp/structs.h
>>>> @@ -842,6 +842,8 @@ struct sctp_packet {
>>>> has_sack:1, /* This packet contains a SACK chunk. */
>>>> has_auth:1, /* This packet contains an AUTH chunk */
>>>> has_data:1, /* This packet contains at least 1 DATA
>>>> chunk
>*/
>>>> + has_isi_err:1, /* This packet contains a "Invalid Stream
>>>> + * Identifier" ERROR chunk */
>>>> ipfragok:1, /* So let ip fragment this packet */
>>>> malloced:1; /* Is it malloced? */
>>>> };
>>>> diff --git a/net/sctp/output.c b/net/sctp/output.c
>>>> index 817174e..77fb1ae 100644
>>>> --- a/net/sctp/output.c
>>>> +++ b/net/sctp/output.c
>>>> @@ -79,6 +79,7 @@ static void sctp_packet_reset(struct sctp_packet
>>>>
>>> *packet)
>>>
>>>> packet->has_sack = 0;
>>>> packet->has_data = 0;
>>>> packet->has_auth = 0;
>>>> + packet->has_isi_err = 0;
>>>> packet->ipfragok = 0;
>>>> packet->auth = NULL;
>>>> }
>>>> @@ -267,6 +268,7 @@ static sctp_xmit_t
>sctp_packet_bundle_sack(struct
>>>>
>>> sctp_packet *pkt,
>>>
>>>> sctp_xmit_t sctp_packet_append_chunk(struct sctp_packet *packet,
>>>> struct sctp_chunk *chunk)
>>>> {
>>>> + struct sctp_chunk *lchunk;
>>>> sctp_xmit_t retval = SCTP_XMIT_OK;
>>>> __u16 chunk_len = WORD_ROUND(ntohs(chunk->chunk_hdr->length));
>>>>
>>>> @@ -316,7 +318,31 @@ sctp_xmit_t sctp_packet_append_chunk(struct
>>>>
>>> sctp_packet *packet,
>>>
>>>> packet->has_cookie_echo = 1;
>>>> break;
>>>>
>>>> + case SCTP_CID_ERROR:
>>>> + if (chunk->subh.err_hdr->cause& SCTP_ERROR_INV_STRM)
>>>> + packet->has_isi_err = 1;
>>>> + break;
>>>> +
>>>> case SCTP_CID_SACK:
>>>> + /* RFC 4960
>>>> + * 6.5 Stream Identifier and Stream Sequence Number
>>>> + * The endpoint may bundle the ERROR chunk in the same
>>>> + * packet as the SACK as long as the ERROR follows the SACK.
>>>> + */
>>>> + if (packet->has_isi_err) {
>>>> + if (list_is_singular(&packet->chunk_list))
>>>> + list_add(&chunk->list,&packet->chunk_list);
>>>> + else {
>>>> + lchunk = list_first_entry(&packet->chunk_list,
>>>> + struct sctp_chunk, list);
>>>> + list_add(&chunk->list,&lchunk->list);
>>>> + }
>>>>
>>>>
>>> And I should clarify the above judgment code.
>>> AFAIK, there should be two cases for the bundling when invalid
>stream
>>> identifier error happens:
>>> 1). COOKIE_ACK ERROR SACK
>>> 2). ERROR SACK
>>> So I need to deal with the two cases differently.
>>>
>>>
>> Sorry but I just don't buy that the above are the only 2 cases. What
>if there are addip chunks as well? What if there are some other
>extensions also. This code has to be generic enough to handle any
>condition.
>>
>Aha, you are right, this may happens.
>So I think the general solution is to fix this problem in the enqueue
>side.
>What do you think? any better suggestion!
>
Don't have code in front of me but what if we carry the error condition to
where we queue the Sack and add the error side effect then?
-vlad
>
>Thanks,
>Xufeng Zhang
>> - vlad
>>
>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Xufeng Zhang
>>>
>>>> + packet->size += chunk_len;
>>>> + chunk->transport = packet->transport;
>>>> + packet->has_sack = 1;
>>>> + goto finish;
>>>> + }
>>>> +
>>>> packet->has_sack = 1;
>>>> break;
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
--
Sent from my Android phone with SkitMail. Please excuse my brevity.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
