Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1161039AbVIBVSb (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Sep 2005 17:18:31 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1161044AbVIBVSa (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Sep 2005 17:18:30 -0400 Received: from yakov.inr.ac.ru ([194.67.69.111]:443 "HELO yakov.inr.ac.ru") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1161039AbVIBVS3 (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Sep 2005 17:18:29 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=ms2.inr.ac.ru; b=IELnfEsz9Hq+HCMxlZ5xOidVcUSXsRp1rtvQfT5SWhSOYuNXfHH6GjHXrFXjGKt3MLce1NYHxDThRmvJmAL6iIQ8IWSiCJWl0ztwXfhDf5FksStq/VYvEvcL99bomMfYgDnEioo+b/OzQfW0Hpy7XKGNGY7O55q34S4A4KdcqEc=; Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 01:18:10 +0400 From: Alexey Kuznetsov To: Ion Badulescu Cc: Alexey Kuznetsov , Ion Badulescu , "David S. Miller" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-net@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Possible BUG in IPv4 TCP window handling, all recent 2.4.x/2.6.x kernels Message-ID: <20050902211810.GB18605@yakov.inr.ac.ru> References: <20050901.154300.118239765.davem@davemloft.net> <20050902183656.GA16537@yakov.inr.ac.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1286 Lines: 30 Hello! > Well, take a look at the double acks for 84439343, 84440447 and 84441059, > they seem pretty much identical to me. It is just a little tcpdump glitch. 19:34:54.532271 < 10.2.20.246.33060 > 65.171.224.182.8700: . 44:44(0) ack 84439343 win 24544 (DF) (ttl 64, id 60946) 19:34:54.532432 < 10.2.20.246.33060 > 65.171.224.182.8700: . 44:44(0) ack 84439343 win 24544 (DF) (ttl 64, id 60946) It is one ACK (look at IP ID), shown twice. This happens sometimes with our packet socket. > >I still do not know how the value of 184 is possible in your case, > >I would expect 730 as an absolute possible minumum. I see 9420 (2355*4). > > The numbers I mentioned are straight from the tcpdump and are not scaled, I understood. I expect when 184*4, when you said 184. But minimum is still 730 (unscaled 1460*2). If you really saw values lower than 730 (unscaled 1460*2), there is another more severe problem and the suggested patch will not solve it. Alexey - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/