On 08/03/2012 05:17 AM, Vlad Yasevich wrote:
On 07/31/2012 02:51 AM, xufeng zhang wrote:
Sorry, please ignore the above patch, there was an paste error.
Please check the following patch.
I'm wondering if the below solution is fine to you which is base
On 07/31/2012 02:51 AM, xufeng zhang wrote:
Sorry, please ignore the above patch, there was an paste error.
Please check the following patch.
I'm wondering if the below solution is fine to you which is based on
your changes.
BTW, I have verified this p
Sorry, please ignore the above patch, there was an paste error.
Please check the following patch.
I'm wondering if the below solution is fine to you which is based on
your changes.
BTW, I have verified this patch and it works ok for all the situation,
b
I'm wondering if the below solution is fine to you which is based on
your changes.
BTW, I have verified this patch and it works ok for all the situation,
but only one problem persists:
there is a potential that commands will exceeds SCTP_MAX_NUM_COMMANDS
which happens during sending lots of small e
On 7/30/12, Xufeng Zhang wrote:
> On 7/28/12, Vlad Yasevich wrote:
>> here is an untested prototype of what I was talking about. This should
>> handle multiple data chunks.
>
> Yes, it works if only the end of the DATA chunk in a packet has
> invalid stream identifier
> and I have verified this
On 7/28/12, Vlad Yasevich wrote:
> here is an untested prototype of what I was talking about. This should
> handle multiple data chunks.
Yes, it works if only the end of the DATA chunk in a packet has
invalid stream identifier
and I have verified this patch by my test case, but what happens if
t
here is an untested prototype of what I was talking about. This should
handle multiple data chunks.
-vlad
---
include/net/sctp/command.h |1 +
net/sctp/sm_sideeffect.c | 22 ++
net/sctp/sm_statefuns.c| 18 ++
3 files changed, 33 insertions(+),
On 7/26/12, Vlad Yasevich wrote:
> Xufeng Zhang wrote:
>
>>On 7/26/12, Xufeng Zhang wrote:
>>> On 7/25/12, Vlad Yasevich wrote:
> And after take a moment to look into the relative codes, I think we
> can implement it
> by below way:
> 1). Add a flag(isi_err_needed) in the embedd
Xufeng Zhang wrote:
>On 7/26/12, Xufeng Zhang wrote:
>> On 7/25/12, Vlad Yasevich wrote:
And after take a moment to look into the relative codes, I think we
can implement it
by below way:
1). Add a flag(isi_err_needed) in the embedded struct peer of
>struct
struct sctp_
On 7/26/12, Xufeng Zhang wrote:
> On 7/25/12, Vlad Yasevich wrote:
>>> And after take a moment to look into the relative codes, I think we
>>> can implement it
>>> by below way:
>>> 1). Add a flag(isi_err_needed) in the embedded struct peer of struct
>>> struct sctp_association
>>> just like sack
Xufeng Zhang wrote:
>On 7/25/12, Vlad Yasevich wrote:
>>> And after take a moment to look into the relative codes, I think we
>>> can implement it
>>> by below way:
>>> 1). Add a flag(isi_err_needed) in the embedded struct peer of struct
>>> struct sctp_association
>>> just like sack_needed flag
On 7/25/12, Neil Horman wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 05:22:19PM +0800, Xufeng Zhang wrote:
>> On 7/25/12, Xufeng Zhang wrote:
>> > On 7/25/12, Vlad Yasevich wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Actually not true. AUTH can be before SACK. So can any addip chunks
>> >> that
>> >> aid in locating an associatio
On 7/25/12, Vlad Yasevich wrote:
>> And after take a moment to look into the relative codes, I think we
>> can implement it
>> by below way:
>> 1). Add a flag(isi_err_needed) in the embedded struct peer of struct
>> struct sctp_association
>> just like sack_needed flag.
>> 2). When "invalid stream
On 07/25/2012 05:22 AM, Xufeng Zhang wrote:
On 7/25/12, Xufeng Zhang wrote:
On 7/25/12, Vlad Yasevich wrote:
Actually not true. AUTH can be before SACK. So can any addip chunks
that
aid in locating an association.
Now AUTH isn't a big issue since its autogenerated to the packet but
ADDIP
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 05:22:19PM +0800, Xufeng Zhang wrote:
> On 7/25/12, Xufeng Zhang wrote:
> > On 7/25/12, Vlad Yasevich wrote:
> >>
> >> Actually not true. AUTH can be before SACK. So can any addip chunks
> >> that
> >> aid in locating an association.
> >>
> >> Now AUTH isn't a big issue
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 10:34:32AM +0800, Xufeng Zhang wrote:
> On 7/24/12, Neil Horman wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 09:50:18AM +0800, xufeng zhang wrote:
> >> On 07/23/2012 08:14 PM, Neil Horman wrote:
> >> >On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 10:30:34AM +0800, xufeng zhang wrote:
> >> >>On 07/23/2012
On 7/25/12, Xufeng Zhang wrote:
> On 7/25/12, Vlad Yasevich wrote:
>>
>> Actually not true. AUTH can be before SACK. So can any addip chunks
>> that
>> aid in locating an association.
>>
>> Now AUTH isn't a big issue since its autogenerated to the packet but
>> ADDIP
>> is since it could be que
On 7/25/12, Vlad Yasevich wrote:
>
> Actually not true. AUTH can be before SACK. So can any addip chunks that
> aid in locating an association.
>
> Now AUTH isn't a big issue since its autogenerated to the packet but ADDIP
> is since it could be queued up for retransmission.
>
> There could be o
Xufeng Zhang wrote:
>On 7/24/12, Vlad Yasevich wrote:
> 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 wi
On 7/24/12, Neil Horman wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 09:50:18AM +0800, xufeng zhang wrote:
>> On 07/23/2012 08:14 PM, Neil Horman wrote:
>> >On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 10:30:34AM +0800, xufeng zhang wrote:
>> >>On 07/23/2012 08:49 AM, Neil Horman wrote:
>> >>>Not sure I understand how you came in
On 7/24/12, Vlad Yasevich wrote:
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.
xufeng zhang wrote:
>On 07/24/2012 10:27 AM, Vlad Yasevich wrote:
>> xufeng zhang 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
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 09:50:18AM +0800, xufeng zhang wrote:
> On 07/23/2012 08:14 PM, Neil Horman wrote:
> >On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 10:30:34AM +0800, xufeng zhang wrote:
> >>On 07/23/2012 08:49 AM, Neil Horman wrote:
> >>>Not sure I understand how you came into this error. If we get an invalid
>
On 07/24/2012 10:27 AM, Vlad Yasevich wrote:
xufeng zhang 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 bun
xufeng zhang 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 c
On 7/23/12, Neil Horman wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 10:30:34AM +0800, xufeng zhang wrote:
>> On 07/23/2012 08:49 AM, Neil Horman wrote:
>> >
>> >Not sure I understand how you came into this error. If we get an
>> > invalid
>> >stream, we issue an SCTP_REPORT_TSN side effect, followed by an
>
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 10:30:34AM +0800, xufeng zhang wrote:
> On 07/23/2012 08:49 AM, Neil Horman wrote:
> >
> >Not sure I understand how you came into this error. If we get an invalid
> >stream, we issue an SCTP_REPORT_TSN side effect, followed by an
> >SCTP_CMD_REPLY
> >which sends the error
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 th
On 07/23/2012 08:49 AM, Neil Horman wrote:
Not sure I understand how you came into this error. If we get an invalid
stream, we issue an SCTP_REPORT_TSN side effect, followed by an SCTP_CMD_REPLY
which sends the error chunk. The reply goes through
sctp_outq_tail->sctp_outq_chunk->sctp_outq_tran
On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 01:57:30PM +0800, 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 a
From:
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 13:57:30 +0800
> 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 pack
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.
Th
32 matches
Mail list logo
