Summary: mds: Do not check upper limit of window size [#3100]
Review request for Ticket(s): 3100
Peer Reviewer(s): Hans, Gary, Thuan, Vu
Pull request to: *** LIST THE PERSON WITH PUSH ACCESS HERE ***
Affected branch(es): develop
Development branch: ticket-3100
Base revision: 95228b1a2a53e3b74c9a54f65e8b2345b8603582
Personal repository: git://git.code.sf.net/u/minh-chau/review
--------------------------------
Impacted area Impact y/n
--------------------------------
Docs n
Build system n
RPM/packaging n
Configuration files n
Startup scripts n
SAF services n
OpenSAF services n
Core libraries y
Samples n
Tests n
Other n
Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above):
---------------------------------------------
*** EXPLAIN/COMMENT THE PATCH SERIES HERE ***
revision e8c4d42438a41bb86f5d56dda5b91a82de7cc1b9
Author: Minh Chau <minh.c...@dektech.com.au>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2019 22:18:52 +1100
mds: Do not check upper limit of window size [#3100]
According to RFC1982: "Addition of a value outside the range
[0 .. (2^(SERIAL_BITS - 1) - 1)] is undefined.". Mds uses 16
bits for mds flow control, thus the maximum allowed range of
window size is 2^15 - 1 = 32767.
The 'mdstest 27 8' has randomly hit this limitation with the
counter errors that is detected in mds as belog logging:
FCTRL: [me] <-- [node:1001001, ref:2784751213],
RcvChkAck[fseq:31067, chunk:3], sndwnd[acked:31064,
send:63850, nacked:1901634], queue[size:32785],
Error[msg disordered]
The fseq should always be less then sndwnd_.send_, hence mds
should check the sender being capable of sending more message
only if D = sndwnd_.send_ - sndwnd_.acked_ < 2^15 - 1 = 32767
If a burst of message is sent, D could be > 32767, mds in this
case should notify the sender try to send again later; which
however could leads to a backward compatibility. For now mds
weaken the windown size verification, only logs a warning and
let the transmission continue.
Complete diffstat:
------------------
src/mds/mds_tipc_fctrl_portid.cc | 23 ++++++++++++++++++++++-
1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
Testing Commands:
-----------------
*** LIST THE COMMAND LINE TOOLS/STEPS TO TEST YOUR CHANGES ***
Testing, Expected Results:
--------------------------
*** PASTE COMMAND OUTPUTS / TEST RESULTS ***
Conditions of Submission:
-------------------------
*** HOW MANY DAYS BEFORE PUSHING, CONSENSUS ETC ***
Arch Built Started Linux distro
-------------------------------------------
mips n n
mips64 n n
x86 n n
x86_64 y y
powerpc n n
powerpc64 n n
Reviewer Checklist:
-------------------
[Submitters: make sure that your review doesn't trigger any checkmarks!]
Your checkin has not passed review because (see checked entries):
___ Your RR template is generally incomplete; it has too many blank entries
that need proper data filled in.
___ You have failed to nominate the proper persons for review and push.
___ Your patches do not have proper short+long header
___ You have grammar/spelling in your header that is unacceptable.
___ You have exceeded a sensible line length in your headers/comments/text.
___ You have failed to put in a proper Trac Ticket # into your commits.
___ You have incorrectly put/left internal data in your comments/files
(i.e. internal bug tracking tool IDs, product names etc)
___ You have not given any evidence of testing beyond basic build tests.
Demonstrate some level of runtime or other sanity testing.
___ You have ^M present in some of your files. These have to be removed.
___ You have needlessly changed whitespace or added whitespace crimes
like trailing spaces, or spaces before tabs.
___ You have mixed real technical changes with whitespace and other
cosmetic code cleanup changes. These have to be separate commits.
___ You need to refactor your submission into logical chunks; there is
too much content into a single commit.
___ You have extraneous garbage in your review (merge commits etc)
___ You have giant attachments which should never have been sent;
Instead you should place your content in a public tree to be pulled.
___ You have too many commits attached to an e-mail; resend as threaded
commits, or place in a public tree for a pull.
___ You have resent this content multiple times without a clear indication
of what has changed between each re-send.
___ You have failed to adequately and individually address all of the
comments and change requests that were proposed in the initial review.
___ You have a misconfigured ~/.gitconfig file (i.e. user.name, user.email etc)
___ Your computer have a badly configured date and time; confusing the
the threaded patch review.
___ Your changes affect IPC mechanism, and you don't present any results
for in-service upgradability test.
___ Your changes affect user manual and documentation, your patch series
do not contain the patch that updates the Doxygen manual.
_______________________________________________
Opensaf-devel mailing list
Opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
