Re: Deadlocking in the transport

Dmitri Tikhonov <dtikhonov@litespeedtech.com> Wed, 10 January 2018 07:05 UTC

Return-Path: <dtikhonov@litespeedtech.com>
X-Original-To: quic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: quic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54FB0127078 for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Jan 2018 23:05:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=litespeedtech-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NPHTM5x6TrY1 for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Jan 2018 23:05:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qt0-x235.google.com (mail-qt0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8D7AC126D46 for <quic@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Jan 2018 23:05:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qt0-x235.google.com with SMTP id u10so20869203qtg.2 for <quic@ietf.org>; Tue, 09 Jan 2018 23:05:50 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=litespeedtech-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:mail-followup-to:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=7GlQ3D6XyX5SelmArTdhUb85j1PyRcWp22xJN7yaGEQ=; b=mZP1j2WVZ9WWMP5ceh87Abs6v5wnTHoqRXOH3isW5pwtC9WXkPZhn4HuS9CzMCh7Wt 9PN7ucvoKdQU1zlfQWJ0JVlnJXhyVdO2R6KYVv0vGvh9h9NlrZaHTAZYX8mhxPnJp8Wq yu8wEp63Pa7iBUGd2bT3dTwutRkDytobAYdzJjX4KsMx/8TArvHZ0+zwFYz7nkVPs6bB i/VCyhpISCpL2r2VqwDuU3Bs3OSoMR/kNjpibjI7RiDvV5axdT/3X1Zl7F0Y8UDiIZ9S v+fePINuiiEuRSTuab0AaqZ9oJQibvHSHN/FfDc69NyY2uadqOYf0f3Toru2uxBz/rcW Vc7Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id :mail-followup-to:references:mime-version:content-disposition :in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=7GlQ3D6XyX5SelmArTdhUb85j1PyRcWp22xJN7yaGEQ=; b=WqPfTMWm4t/bj9QLR/o+bM7tKVWdnfXPLp88Bk8eE7tmxaHePISxSBy0EH8fc469fq r0OiGeDZVgSrcGmwv/r8hcWtFZdo3aIFdmrIRbg+j9ujLt/vWaOJjssI9Eds/zsyuPUZ +DPjQN43En8MnZkfV3Zokk6rPz1wR1NTW+6yufR4ka01RAFL4PHrt179ptkLi05sEwYd 1LtJ8qeOcayXtAs5+sb2ltZ0ifRFAP6bKjSd0ksegd5jwzPZmOGniYP98Mze/D2VAVJk AO0ESwiOArNRQLWS3Tvgbpj8bkRkWY7ij6nISZYKkL7C702ClI4YTU4SFV5xJPunMCoj 69Sw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytcj7d+p6qKofvvBVVBmS68fggq8wNI84YNcG/Hdcigo+nbp5bgV Ov1jIXWlPJoxJCq6lyI6t9a1rA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBosmVDAqyCGqmu4H568Bgn9x2bidMhhwiR73/Hh92sCJ7BWU9GplFcoAddmPKcWZrQWs5LdgHw==
X-Received: by 10.237.47.228 with SMTP id m91mr25470769qtd.297.1515567949642; Tue, 09 Jan 2018 23:05:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ubuntu-dmitri (ool-45715890.dyn.optonline.net. [69.113.88.144]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id e63sm10433227qkb.46.2018.01.09.23.05.48 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 09 Jan 2018 23:05:49 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 02:05:43 -0500
From: Dmitri Tikhonov <dtikhonov@litespeedtech.com>
To: Jana Iyengar <jri@google.com>
Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Deadlocking in the transport
Message-ID: <20180110070542.GA27331@ubuntu-dmitri>
Mail-Followup-To: Jana Iyengar <jri@google.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>
References: <CABkgnnUSMYRvYNUwzuJk4TQ28qb-sEHmgXhxpjKOBON43_rWCg@mail.gmail.com> <CAGD1bZYV7iHg_YarUMqUSnpbAB2q8dwEWO=dHE2wbw8Oea_zfA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAGD1bZYV7iHg_YarUMqUSnpbAB2q8dwEWO=dHE2wbw8Oea_zfA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/c3x7zxBuBvi-zDl1aGH0QYMVPog>
X-BeenThere: quic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Main mailing list of the IETF QUIC working group <quic.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/quic>, <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic/>
List-Post: <mailto:quic@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic>, <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 07:05:52 -0000

On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 10:49:28PM -0800, Jana Iyengar wrote:
> Protocols that create inter-stream dependency should be able to express
> that in priorities down to the transport, which I believe is expected to be
> part of the API. I believe that handles this issue, doesn't it?

When it comes to priorities, the QUIC I-D gives implementations
some leeway [1].  One cannot guarantee that a conforming
implementation will not deadlock.

  - Dmitri.

1. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-quic-transport-08#section-10.6