IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Deadlocking in the transport

Jana Iyengar <jri@google.com> Wed, 10 January 2018 20:32 UTC

Return-Path: <jri@google.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 BD31B12711B for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 12:32:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.01
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.01 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.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 OQkKxbh8j4hC for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 12:32:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yw0-x22f.google.com (mail-yw0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::22f]) (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 0DDF9126DED for <quic@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 12:32:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-yw0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id m84so120157ywd.5 for <quic@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 12:32:19 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=ayO6k16YG4GjR0GFlAGqEg75x7Tcs6MYKXAizbkzksI=; b=C0lRNqbNARB98dBKWaR9hoFFhUVjDZS5VxyErhzW3GiTRMMV2W15xQfKoi3SiF14tC riGD5Owq03yRz3APWhuudBLRJCrAFzWwoO84/T8BdVSQjf9jN7IwZNlG6H8hP75jw79U 6Dzdh8BJVrOwJz9kytGRNWh+Q8Sy4342KN/PdNRFBlT98eeViLAjIvkf2obbZM4GPLfe 3x/Magpe9VN0Bx3R8H4IVa5PnqNaTOLeSaK3X9lHWZxhQXdgbQZHt+zUOZNJ++5hVLgq /x9g5SKSKUBZtQyOiN0cgyTvSo4YVD3Pqmm+kTrvJTfnU3AIMsf2KssFWOMNitySnBLT XOkQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=ayO6k16YG4GjR0GFlAGqEg75x7Tcs6MYKXAizbkzksI=; b=gK6ahvBTptp3Q9fc52klI/HmL6hYQp7m0quG+XnAA5EHi+GLkvKp/qmMheoOOHa+uF Rxxdz/Ds2y2TNRz2eREOmBeWWDScyw555Zdf0zBjy7FTE4bM2VIGFls2XtZQAGz0gopg ojDwLVG4bXMEo/cqnjlEtPKwLUZwnjPH11y4Qnrudg+qCIXBs31A9pNmDTCa9yY6VEuZ Xrm6SAQUuvGwPCYikEeI7vaNdHt3skrtWd0K+N8xzOmPL6xIDwZzjn/hy6AvMOINIAtZ wbocoyPS7+1MkJDgE854bKmbqxCRK3I+OAPaKiw2Adxt5oZFDvjNB+dnYPNlmsdTBBOC /5Lw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mK2njrsz2n+goJvMj7IyGTiEEHQgD/JgM1TnH//taRkWMnt5Smy fs+5zALtG7Qx2T+mzW/918wVbZvKGXiI7yBLpWBMBg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBos0FjOp/xtNJSL8p8195ue/PjIt2CP1XSAATOqLqXDS/8qo3RUP59S9tYTRTAFc0J8lGy20rX0CwIbvtAYmOlw=
X-Received: by 10.13.213.20 with SMTP id x20mr8669291ywd.94.1515616338777; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 12:32:18 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.37.42.147 with HTTP; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 12:32:18 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20180110202357.GC30573@ubuntu-dmitri>
References: <CABkgnnUSMYRvYNUwzuJk4TQ28qb-sEHmgXhxpjKOBON43_rWCg@mail.gmail.com> <CAGD1bZYV7iHg_YarUMqUSnpbAB2q8dwEWO=dHE2wbw8Oea_zfA@mail.gmail.com> <CAD-iZUY-Y-MO_T74JmP6B9XVj=91eVovfcWnE=9s9kd0Ji+CnA@mail.gmail.com> <CAGD1bZa7ugOTT11qOKfCm4NFdi+t-pdrXnscWHgg0bO5tgUqmg@mail.gmail.com> <20180110194716.GA30573@ubuntu-dmitri> <CAGD1bZYiDOakLYNppMBr=99JreX3Xr2zkS7O2DRNfvr_o0NUbg@mail.gmail.com> <20180110200646.GB30573@ubuntu-dmitri> <CAGD1bZa-ZOw5J6oSWBYdk3uYHOpGvak+vwGp0XsZB44zbLvRrw@mail.gmail.com> <20180110202357.GC30573@ubuntu-dmitri>
From: Jana Iyengar <jri@google.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 12:32:18 -0800
Message-ID: <CAGD1bZbPM3wnatLLN5938wGPo3e1qmxnGzobSTym6XX3W8FNJQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Deadlocking in the transport
To: Jana Iyengar <jri@google.com>, Charles 'Buck' Krasic <ckrasic@google.com>, QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c054bc47de8af056271eda7"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/ie2Ta0JQFed6OG-HO543yI-40zo>
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 20:32:22 -0000

On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 12:23 PM, Dmitri Tikhonov <
dtikhonov@litespeedtech.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 12:14:13PM -0800, Jana Iyengar wrote:
> > SHOULD is pretty strong. It's not a guarantee, but then a transport
> > implementation that doesn't do it is expected to know what it's doing.
>
> If an application protocol is based on an assumption that the transport's
> SHOULD is really a MUST, then you end up with an application that works
> with some transport implementations, but not other -- conforming! --
> implementations.


I agree, but we aren't specifying the entire API, and I'm not sure that we
want to resolve all potential API inconsistencies here.

> We could include language in this section about priorities being important
> > to avoid deadlocks when an application has dependencies across streams.
>
> What would this advice be?  "Consume *all data* from higher priority
> streams before consuming data from lower priority streams?"


Yes, to avoid deadlock.


>
>   - Dmitri.
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email