In case of ACK reordering, the SACK block might be valid in it's
time but is already obsoleted since we've received another kind
of confirmation about arrival of the segments through snd_una
advancement of an earlier packet.
I didn't bother to build distinguishing of valid and invalid
SACK blocks but simply made reordered SACK blocks that are too
old always not counted regardless of their "real" validity which
could be determined by using the ack field of the reordered
packet (won't be significant IMHO).
DSACKs can very well be considered useful even in this situation,
so won't do any of this for them.
Signed-off-by: Ilpo Järvinen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
net/ipv4/tcp_input.c | 7 ++++++-
1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c b/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c
index 532288b..ae06b94 100644
--- a/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c
+++ b/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c
@@ -1250,8 +1250,13 @@ tcp_sacktag_write_queue(struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff
*ack_skb, u32 prior_snd_
NET_INC_STATS_BH(LINUX_MIB_TCPDSACKIGNOREDNOUNDO);
else
NET_INC_STATS_BH(LINUX_MIB_TCPDSACKIGNOREDOLD);
- } else
+ } else {
+ /* Don't count olds caused by ACK reordering */
+ if ((TCP_SKB_CB(ack_skb)->ack_seq !=
tp->snd_una) &&
+ !after(end_seq, tp->snd_una))
+ continue;
NET_INC_STATS_BH(LINUX_MIB_TCPSACKDISCARD);
+ }
continue;
}
--
1.5.0.6
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
