On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 20:29:03 +0200
Baruch Even <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The sorting of SACK blocks actually munges them rather than sort, causing the
> TCP stack to ignore some SACK information and breaking the assumption of
> ordered SACK blocks after sorting.
>
> The sort takes the data from a second buffer which isn't moved causing
> subsequent data moves to occur from the wrong location. The fix is to
> use a temporary buffer as a normal sort does.
>
> Signed-Off-By: Baruch Even <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> diff -X 2.6-rc6/Documentation/dontdiff -ur 2.6-rc6/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c
> 2.6-mod/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c
> --- 2.6-rc6/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c 2007-01-25 19:04:20.000000000 +0200
> +++ 2.6-mod/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c 2007-01-25 19:52:04.000000000 +0200
> @@ -1011,10 +1011,11 @@
> for (j = 0; j < i; j++){
> if (after(ntohl(sp[j].start_seq),
> ntohl(sp[j+1].start_seq))){
> - sp[j].start_seq =
> htonl(tp->recv_sack_cache[j+1].start_seq);
> - sp[j].end_seq =
> htonl(tp->recv_sack_cache[j+1].end_seq);
> - sp[j+1].start_seq =
> htonl(tp->recv_sack_cache[j].start_seq);
> - sp[j+1].end_seq =
> htonl(tp->recv_sack_cache[j].end_seq);
> + struct tcp_sack_block_wire tmp;
> +
> + tmp = sp[j];
> + sp[j] = sp[j+1];
> + sp[j+1] = tmp;
> }
>
> }
This looks okay, but is there a test case that can be run?
--
Stephen Hemminger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-
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
