Re: Supporting 4 way connections in LKSCTP

From: Sun Paul
Date: Mon Dec 02 2013 - 21:19:45 EST

Next message: Sun Paul: "Re: Supporting 4 way connections in LKSCTP"
Previous message: Joonsoo Kim: "Re: [PATCH v3 5/5] slab: make more slab management structure off theslab"
In reply to: Vlad Yasevich: "Re: Supporting 4 way connections in LKSCTP"
Next in thread: Vlad Yasevich: "Re: Supporting 4 way connections in LKSCTP"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

so in this case, says

(NODE-A) IP-B send INIT to IP-X (NODE-B), and then IP-Y (NODE-B)
returns INIT_ACK to IP-B (NODE-A)

this is also treated as a valid, am I correct?

On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 12/02/2013 08:39 PM, Sun Paul wrote:
>> Another question
>>
>> if a wrong source IP is used, does the association still classified as normal?
>
> What do you mean my wrong source IP? As long as the address is part of
> the association, it can be used.
>
> -vlad
>
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 9:31 AM, Sun Paul <paulrbk@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> Thanks Vlad
>>>
>>> I checked on the route, and it looks correct.
>>>
>>> [root@localhost ~]# ip route get 11.1.1.1 from 110.1.1.1
>>> 11.1.1.1 from 110.1.1.1 via 110.1.1.254 dev eth1
>>> cache mtu 1500 advmss 1460 hoplimit 64
>>>
>>> [root@localhost ~]# ip route get 11.1.1.1 from 120.1.1.1
>>> 11.1.1.1 from 120.1.1.1 via 120.1.1.254 dev eth2
>>> cache mtu 1500 advmss 1460 hoplimit 64
>>>
>>> [root@localhost ~]# ip route get 12.1.1.1 from 120.1.1.1
>>> 12.1.1.1 from 120.1.1.1 via 120.1.1.254 dev eth2
>>> cache mtu 1500 advmss 1460 hoplimit 64
>>>
>>> [root@localhost ~]# ip route get 12.1.1.1 from 110.1.1.1
>>> 12.1.1.1 from 110.1.1.1 via 110.1.1.254 dev eth1
>>> cache mtu 1500 advmss 1460 hoplimit 64
>>>
>>> so, if this is not being handled in LKSCTP, is it possible to suggest
>>> a way how we can achieve it?
>>>
>>> On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 12:42 AM, Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> On 12/02/2013 10:45 AM, Karl Heiss wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 9:38 AM, Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/27/2013 11:03 PM, Sun Paul wrote:
>>>>>>> How LKSCTP select which source address to use for the INIT_ACK or
>>>>>>> HB_ACK? below is the testing result where a router is located in the
>>>>>>> middle.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Before starting the application. the packet on eth1 and eth2 are
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> eth1
>>>>>>> 0 packets dropped by kernel
>>>>>>> [root@localhost ~]# tcpdump -i eth1 -s 0 -nn
>>>>>>> tcpdump: verbose output suppressed, use -v or -vv for full protocol decode
>>>>>>> listening on eth1, link-type EN10MB (Ethernet), capture size 65535 bytes
>>>>>>> 11:24:14.262489 IP 12.1.1.1.2905 > 110.1.1.1.2905: sctp (1) [INIT]
>>>>>>> [init tag: 28362903] [rwnd: 102400] [OS: 16] [MIS: 16] [init TSN: 0]
>>>>>>> 11:24:14.262522 IP 110.1.1.1.2905 > 12.1.1.1.2905: sctp (1) [ABORT]
>>>>>>> 11:24:14.539486
>>>>>>> 11:24:16.262488 IP 12.1.1.1.2905 > 110.1.1.1.2905: sctp (1) [INIT]
>>>>>>> [init tag: 29391734] [rwnd: 102400] [OS: 16] [MIS: 16] [init TSN: 0]
>>>>>>> 11:24:16.262520 IP 110.1.1.1.2905 > 12.1.1.1.2905: sctp (1) [ABORT]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> eth2
>>>>>>> [root@localhost ~]# tcpdump -i eth2 -s 0 -nn
>>>>>>> tcpdump: verbose output suppressed, use -v or -vv for full protocol decode
>>>>>>> listening on eth2, link-type EN10MB (Ethernet), capture size 65535 bytes
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When starting the application. the packet show as below.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> eth1
>>>>>>> 11:26:02.261511 IP 12.1.1.1.2905 > 110.1.1.1.2905: sctp (1) [INIT]
>>>>>>> [init tag: 26256828] [rwnd: 102400] [OS: 16] [MIS: 16] [init TSN: 0]
>>>>>>> 11:26:02.263513 IP 12.1.1.1.2905 > 110.1.1.1.2905: sctp (1) [COOKIE ECHO]
>>>>>>> 11:26:02.264518 IP 12.1.1.1.2905 > 110.1.1.1.2905: sctp (1) [HB REQ]
>>>>>>> 11:26:02.563511 IP 12.1.1.1.2905 > 110.1.1.1.2905: sctp (1) [HB REQ]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> eth2
>>>>>>> 11:26:02.261604 IP 120.1.1.1.2905 > 12.1.1.1.2905: sctp (1) [INIT ACK]
>>>>>>> [init tag: 3478239387] [rwnd: 131072] [OS: 5] [MIS: 5] [init TSN:
>>>>>>> 2330749678]
>>>>>>> 11:26:02.263583 IP 120.1.1.1.2905 > 12.1.1.1.2905: sctp (1) [COOKIE ACK]
>>>>>>> 11:26:02.264548 IP 120.1.1.1.2905 > 12.1.1.1.2905: sctp (1) [HB ACK]
>>>>>>> 11:26:02.264652 IP 11.1.1.1.2905 > 120.1.1.1.2905: sctp (1) [HB REQ]
>>>>>>> 11:26:02.264705 IP 120.1.1.1.2905 > 11.1.1.1.2905: sctp (1) [HB ACK]
>>>>>>> 11:26:02.563543 IP 120.1.1.1.2905 > 12.1.1.1.2905: sctp (1) [HB ACK]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From the above result, you can see that the INIT, COOKIE ECHO and
>>>>>>> HB_REQ originated from 12.1.1.1 on eth1, but the ACK (INIT_ACK,
>>>>>>> COOKIE_ACK, HB_ACK) are returned on eth2 using source address
>>>>>>> 120.1.1.1 instead of 110.1.1.1.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why LKSCTP use 120.1.1.1 as source instead of 110.1.1.1?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For simple ICMP ping test, it is normal, but not for SCTP.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> eth1
>>>>>>> 11:30:02.824548 IP 12.1.1.1 > 110.1.1.1: ICMP echo request, id 37178,
>>>>>>> seq 12, length 64
>>>>>>> 11:30:02.824559 IP 110.1.1.1 > 12.1.1.1: ICMP echo reply, id 37178,
>>>>>>> seq 12, length 64
>>>>>>> 11:30:03.825551 IP 12.1.1.1 > 110.1.1.1: ICMP echo request, id 37178,
>>>>>>> seq 13, length 64
>>>>>>> 11:30:03.825561 IP 110.1.1.1 > 12.1.1.1: ICMP echo reply, id 37178,
>>>>>>> seq 13, length 64
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> eth2
>>>>>>> 11:30:34.027687 IP 11.1.1.1 > 120.1.1.1: ICMP echo request, id 46138,
>>>>>>> seq 2, length 64
>>>>>>> 11:30:34.027697 IP 120.1.1.1 > 11.1.1.1: ICMP echo reply, id 46138,
>>>>>>> seq 2, length 64
>>>>>>> 11:30:35.027686 IP 11.1.1.1 > 120.1.1.1: ICMP echo request, id 46138,
>>>>>>> seq 3, length 64
>>>>>>> 11:30:35.027694 IP 120.1.1.1 > 11.1.1.1: ICMP echo reply, id 46138,
>>>>>>> seq 3, length 64
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Below is the route information
>>>>>>> #route -n
>>>>>>> Kernel IP routing table
>>>>>>> Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface
>>>>>>> 110.1.1.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth1
>>>>>>> 120.1.1.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth2
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> # ip route show
>>>>>>> 110.1.1.0/24 dev eth1 proto kernel scope link src 110.1.1.1
>>>>>>> 120.1.1.0/24 dev eth2 proto kernel scope link src 120.1.1.1
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since we are using iproute2, so we will have dedicate routing table
>>>>>>> per interface
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> # ip route show table SCTP1
>>>>>>> default via 110.1.1.254 dev eth1
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> # ip route show table SCTP2
>>>>>>> default via 120.1.1.254 dev eth2
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> # ip rule ls
>>>>>>> 0: from all lookup local
>>>>>>> 101: from 110.1.1.1 lookup SCTP1
>>>>>>> 102: from 120.1.1.1 lookup SCTP2
>>>>>>> 32766: from all lookup main
>>>>>>> 32767: from all lookup default
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How LKSCTP select source address to reply? If we know how it works,
>>>>>>> then we may know what is going wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> LKSCTP will prefer the address returned from the routing table as long
>>>>>> as it is one of the addresses that is bound by the socket and are usable
>>>>>> by the association.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If the address returned from the route lookup is not part of the
>>>>>> association, then lksctp attempts to lookup routes using one of the
>>>>>> source addresses it has available. Usually the first lookup succeeds
>>>>>> due to the host-model implementation in linux.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You may want to change your rule set to be destination based. Then
>>>>>> in the table associated with the rule, specify the source address
>>>>>> you want to be used.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -vlad
>>>>>
>>>>> I have had similar qualms myself about this behavior, and I honestly
>>>>> don't know what the correct answer should be...
>>>>>
>>>>> In my opinion, shouldn't the source address "just work" for
>>>>> acknowledgements? If the spec explicitly states that the ACK should
>>>>> have a source address that matches the destination of the chunk being
>>>>> ACKed, why should someone have to configure this behavior outside of
>>>>> the SCTP stack by default? Is it a technical limitation, or is this
>>>>> done for a particular reason? I can understand needing to override
>>>>> the behavior, but why isn't the default "sane"?
>>>>
>>>> I think the results are sane, they simply may not match expectations.
>>>> SCTP spec doesn't say anything about source address selection. It
>>>> says that a response should be send back to the source of the request.
>>>> This is being done in both cases, i.e. the destination address in
>>>> INIT-ACK matches the source of the INIT.
>>>>
>>>> The spec does contain the MAY text that allows finer control of source
>>>> addresses, but lksctp doesn't seem to implement that. Whenever we've
>>>> tried, we couldn't get the generic mechanism working to please everyone,
>>>> as everyone had slightly different configurations and expectations. So
>>>> we left it to the rules engine.
>>>>
>>>> In this setup, it just appears that the default routing is not what you
>>>> expect. You can easily check this with 'ip route get' command. If it
>>>> is not what you want linux allows you to change that via ip rules.
>>>>
>>>> -vlad
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Karl
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 8:45 PM, Neil Horman <nhorman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 07:10:49AM +0800, Sun Paul wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hi Vlad
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thank for your reply. If it is based on the destination IP to find the
>>>>>>>>> best route, why the problem didn't happen on single-homing sample?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Because You only ever use one address from NODE A (12.1.1.1)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In the single-homing sample that provided in the original email, both
>>>>>>>>> of the interfaces (eth1 and eth2) are presented on NODE-B during the
>>>>>>>>> test. However, the LKSCTP library know to use the interface eth1 to
>>>>>>>>> respond to the SCTP request.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, because it does a route lookup to each of the two ip addresses to NODE B,
>>>>>>>> and in both lookups, the route indicates that only one source address should be
>>>>>>>> used (12.1.1.1). If you issue a ip route show command, you'll see that routes
>>>>>>>> to both address on NODE B match on a rule that specifies the same src address
>>>>>>>> and interface be used.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Neil
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> - PS
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 7:09 AM, Sun Paul <paulrbk@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Hi Vlad
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thank for your reply. If it is based on the destination IP to find the
>>>>>>>>>> best route, why the problem didn't happen on single-homing sample?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In the single-homing sample that provided in the original email, both
>>>>>>>>>> of the interfaces (eth1 and eth2) are presented on NODE-B during the
>>>>>>>>>> test. However, the LKSCTP library know to use the interface eth1 to
>>>>>>>>>> respond to the SCTP request.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - PS
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 11:19 PM, Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/25/2013 08:03 PM, Sun Paul wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> we have a problem on using LKSCTP to form a 4 ways multi-homing network.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Configuration
>>>>>>>>>>>> - Node-A has 2 IP addresses in different subnets, known as IP-A (eth1),
>>>>>>>>>>>> IP-B (eth2)
>>>>>>>>>>>> - Node-B has 2 IP addresses in different subnets, known as IP-X (eth1),
>>>>>>>>>>>> IP-Y (eth2)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> First of all, this is not a 4 way multi-homed network. As far as each
>>>>>>>>>>> SCTP association is concerned, it has only 2 destinations to send to
>>>>>>>>>>> so it has only 2 ways to get there. The fact that you have multiple
>>>>>>>>>>> local addresses doesn't mean that every local address can and should
>>>>>>>>>>> be used to connect to the remote.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> the four way paths are shown below.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. IP-A (11.1.1.1) to IP-X (11.1.1.11)
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. IP-B (12.1.1.1) to IP-Y (12.1.1.11)
>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. IP-A (11.1.1.1) to IP-Y (12.1.1.11)
>>>>>>>>>>>> 4. IP-B (12.1.1.1) to IP-X (11.1.1.11)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No, actually you only have 2 paths: one to IPX and one to IP-Y.
>>>>>>>>>>> Which source address you choose is based on routing policy
>>>>>>>>>>> decisions and is outside the scope of SCTP.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> the HB/HB_ACK is normal for the paths " IP-A to IP-X" and "IP-B to
>>>>>>>>>>>> IP-Y", but it is not correct for the rest of two.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Right, because linux is using a host addressing model, not an interface
>>>>>>>>>>> addressing model. SCTP stack simply finds the best source address
>>>>>>>>>>> that can be used to reach IP-X and it happens to be IP-A. So that
>>>>>>>>>>> is what it is going to use.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The above explains why you are seeing what you describe below.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In the end, linux SCTP implementation determines paths solely based
>>>>>>>>>>> on the destination address.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> -vlad
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> First of all, we are using iproute2 to form 2 table such that when
>>>>>>>>>>>> IP-B arrives on IP-X, it will know how to route back to IP-B on the
>>>>>>>>>>>> same interface, i.e (eth1). Same logic for the path "IP-A to IP-X".
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> What we observed here is that when 12.1.1.1 sends INIT to 11.1.1.11,
>>>>>>>>>>>> LKSCTP will send back the INIT_ACK to 12.1.1.1 using 12.1.1.11 but not
>>>>>>>>>>>> using the IP 11.1.1.11.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The above operation makes the subsequence HB/HB_ACK in using wrong IP address.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> TCP trace on eth1
>>>>>>>>>>>> 18:02:41.058640 IP 12.1.1.1.2905 > 11.1.1.11.2905: sctp (1) [INIT]
>>>>>>>>>>>> [init tag: 19933036] [rwnd: 102400] [OS: 16] [MIS: 16] [init TSN: 0]
>>>>>>>>>>>> 18:02:41.061634 IP 12.1.1.1.2905 > 11.1.1.11.2905: sctp (1) [COOKIE ECHO]
>>>>>>>>>>>> 18:02:41.062642 IP 12.1.1.1.2905 > 11.1.1.11.2905: sctp (1) [HB REQ]
>>>>>>>>>>>> 18:02:41.062846 IP 11.1.1.11.2905 > 11.1.1.1.2905: sctp (1) [HB ACK]
>>>>>>>>>>>> 18:02:41.361811 IP 11.1.1.11.2905 > 11.1.1.1.2905: sctp (1) [HB ACK]
>>>>>>>>>>>> 18:02:41.661791 IP 11.1.1.11.2905 > 11.1.1.1.2905: sctp (1) [HB ACK]
>>>>>>>>>>>> 18:02:41.961791 IP 11.1.1.11.2905 > 11.1.1.1.2905: sctp (1) [HB ACK]
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> TCP trace on eth2
>>>>>>>>>>>> 18:02:41.058755 IP 12.1.1.11.2905 > 12.1.1.1.2905: sctp (1) [INIT ACK]
>>>>>>>>>>>> [init tag: 424726157] [rwnd: 131072] [OS: 5] [MIS: 5] [init TSN:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 3340756356]
>>>>>>>>>>>> 18:02:41.061696 IP 12.1.1.11.2905 > 12.1.1.1.2905: sctp (1) [COOKIE ACK]
>>>>>>>>>>>> 18:02:41.062663 IP 12.1.1.11.2905 > 12.1.1.1.2905: sctp (1) [HB ACK]
>>>>>>>>>>>> 18:02:41.062791 IP 11.1.1.1.2905 > 12.1.1.11.2905: sctp (1) [HB REQ]
>>>>>>>>>>>> 18:02:41.361777 IP 11.1.1.1.2905 > 12.1.1.11.2905: sctp (1) [HB REQ]
>>>>>>>>>>>> 18:02:41.661772 IP 11.1.1.1.2905 > 12.1.1.11.2905: sctp (1) [HB REQ]
>>>>>>>>>>>> 18:02:41.961772 IP 11.1.1.1.2905 > 12.1.1.11.2905: sctp (1) [HB REQ]
>>>>>>>>>>>> 18:02:42.161771 IP 11.1.1.1.2905 > 12.1.1.11.2905: sctp (1) [HB REQ]
>>>>>>>>>>>> 18:02:42.461770 IP 11.1.1.1.2905 > 12.1.1.11.2905: sctp (1) [HB REQ]
>>>>>>>>>>>> 18:02:42.675770 IP 11.1.1.1.2905 > 12.1.1.11.2905: sctp (1) [HB REQ]
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If we are using single homing, there is no problem on the SCTP
>>>>>>>>>>>> communication. Below is the TCP trace on eth1 using sctp_test
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 18:09:55.356727 IP 12.1.1.1.2905 > 11.1.1.11.2905: sctp (1) [INIT]
>>>>>>>>>>>> [init tag: 32516609] [rwnd: 102400] [OS: 16] [MIS: 16] [init TSN: 0]
>>>>>>>>>>>> 18:09:55.356811 IP 11.1.1.11.2905 > 12.1.1.1.2905: sctp (1) [INIT ACK]
>>>>>>>>>>>> [init tag: 3168861995] [rwnd: 131072] [OS: 10] [MIS: 16] [init TSN:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1877695021]
>>>>>>>>>>>> 18:09:55.357727 IP 12.1.1.1.2905 > 11.1.1.11.2905: sctp (1) [COOKIE ECHO]
>>>>>>>>>>>> 18:09:55.357788 IP 11.1.1.11.2905 > 12.1.1.1.2905: sctp (1) [COOKIE ACK]
>>>>>>>>>>>> 18:09:55.358724 IP 12.1.1.1.2905 > 11.1.1.11.2905: sctp (1) [HB REQ]
>>>>>>>>>>>> 18:09:55.358740 IP 11.1.1.11.2905 > 12.1.1.1.2905: sctp (1) [HB ACK]
>>>>>>>>>>>> 18:09:55.379715 IP 12.1.1.1.2905 > 11.1.1.11.2905: sctp (1) [DATA]
>>>>>>>>>>>> (B)(E) [TSN: 0] [SID: 0] [SSEQ 0] [PPID 0x3]
>>>>>>>>>>>> 18:09:55.379735 IP 11.1.1.11.2905 > 12.1.1.1.2905: sctp (1) [SACK]
>>>>>>>>>>>> [cum ack 0] [a_rwnd 131064] [#gap acks 0] [#dup tsns 0]
>>>>>>>>>>>> 18:09:55.657716 IP 12.1.1.1.2905 > 11.1.1.11.2905: sctp (1) [HB REQ]
>>>>>>>>>>>> 18:09:55.657732 IP 11.1.1.11.2905 > 12.1.1.1.2905: sctp (1) [HB ACK]
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> From the observations, it seems that the LKSCTP library is not able to
>>>>>>>>>>>> use the original local address when multi-homing is being used. Is
>>>>>>>>>>>> there anyway can be resolved it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> PS
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sctp" in
>>>>>>>>>>>> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>>>>>>>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sctp" in
>>>>>>>>> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>>>>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sctp" in
>>>>>> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>>>>
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: Sun Paul: "Re: Supporting 4 way connections in LKSCTP"
Previous message: Joonsoo Kim: "Re: [PATCH v3 5/5] slab: make more slab management structure off theslab"
In reply to: Vlad Yasevich: "Re: Supporting 4 way connections in LKSCTP"
Next in thread: Vlad Yasevich: "Re: Supporting 4 way connections in LKSCTP"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]