On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 08:50:51PM +0100, Stefano Brivio wrote: > It looks like a detail, but it's critical if we're dealing with > somebody, such as near-future self, using TCP_REPAIR to migrate TCP > connections in the guest or container. > > The last packet sent from the 'source' process/guest/container > typically reports a small window, or zero, because the guest/container > hadn't been draining it for a while. > > The next packet, appearing as the target sets TCP_REPAIR_OFF on the > migrated socket, is a keep-alive (also called "window probe" in CRIU > or TCP_REPAIR-related code), and it comes with an updated window > value, reflecting the pre-migration "regular" value. > > If we ignore it, it might take a while/forever before we realise we > can actually restart sending. > > Fixes: 238c69f9af45 ("tcp: Acknowledge keep-alive segments, ignore them for the rest") > Signed-off-by: Stefano Brivio Reviewed-by: David Gibson Although... > --- > tcp.c | 4 +++- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/tcp.c b/tcp.c > index af6bd95..2addf4a 100644 > --- a/tcp.c > +++ b/tcp.c > @@ -1664,8 +1664,10 @@ static int tcp_data_from_tap(const struct ctx *c, struct tcp_tap_conn *conn, > tcp_send_flag(c, conn, ACK); > tcp_timer_ctl(c, conn); > > - if (p->count == 1) > + if (p->count == 1) { ... not really this patch, but this condition seems wrong to me. IIUC it's attempting to detect the last packet in the batch, which isn't necessarily the same thing as the _only_ packet in the batch. Admittedly, it probably will be for a keep-alive, but I'm having a hard time convincing myself it absolutely has to be. Should this maybe be (i + 1 == p->count) instead? > + tcp_tap_window_update(conn, ntohs(th->window)); > return 1; > + } > > continue; > } -- David Gibson (he or they) | I'll have my music baroque, and my code david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you, not the other way | around. http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson