From owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org Fri Apr 24 14:23:45 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71D2F2B6B02; Fri, 24 Apr 2020 14:23:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from markjdb@gmail.com) Received: from mail-qk1-x742.google.com (mail-qk1-x742.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::742]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "GTS CA 1O1" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 497xHP2QXZz4R8P; Fri, 24 Apr 2020 14:23:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from markjdb@gmail.com) Received: by mail-qk1-x742.google.com with SMTP id l25so10305544qkk.3; Fri, 24 Apr 2020 07:23:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=03BHvk9WhDkdFdVheP3FEUIfFXhDv4w3c+YJsKRgibA=; b=sSwyhpydJaBecIsq3Xd/7BASKuwjpEHk4siok1TXEVM/w97zEQ86llsW86Oew5dn2o DgdQiif3coVsJjS6DQTpwrSV5vT02ndOjjgB05OidzVwk+2+jOYCFEBB8l2+b0lYkAXP Z7R+TuPJE0Sa87L3LiVznJZCGH7psInyKHaTLSGh90Jh7vayib1xnIlNE2edxbedLTqd yYZl0BxW1t5xpMLk3StSAQ2EhKtkiJmMTlwUgbl9B7TKLQ8rwVbk97AJHQVTgzpYoX7u gjk+8NWQELDbEW7eLAoIzP1I91JFXaT5IIiy+D3oZ0Rkzf0PpzhQc+0fCkfWCBY/iWIs ytKg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id :references:mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=03BHvk9WhDkdFdVheP3FEUIfFXhDv4w3c+YJsKRgibA=; b=VMM4S0eFXWao9bxqF1flgE8Hqyksx+a3gyCy3T/FiFLqjIeCrE6Otema/VKZ7sgK/w SSVU5eNjlbe1K/UIriSRHSWM8UpUwQRD9cK4ksxekgaLsIKb1cQEOdWxGcfKthQnYbqD Hh3bCkzfULWzfivMm2JOSNOFxPDrZtA7WyBrB/Rm+6m2by6cMgFN+DqY/lS1Ql/aesie PG9Z5qyMCtA+Imre45WJuHyTOaavSFOogQEX7Nny/WLvqUSWtE49VLt87fgodUKFRNyF jjfnk0dE5gVEd+RQm5wlK4jrCuzf3zIIadAJ87w7Rb9kIT7aWCnUYz3zCb76M2Id40De 2q6w== X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PuY1KeZHYj1oY428QfXEKJJmAJKbwRYq3AekJCAKuXdbf3UKzkrW cmNR+rZfb1Ku9bTtKYRjwpoXRY3g X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypIHRnf3/9S1De0XSbVvqXphCZCXXugU8UKw3VOXpPEJMeVYe6Wh6ZPRBbqetP0k3IXh34tcLw== X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:138e:: with SMTP id k14mr9234819qki.452.1587738224364; Fri, 24 Apr 2020 07:23:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from raichu (toroon0560w-lp130-10-174-94-17-182.dsl.bell.ca. [174.94.17.182]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id o43sm4020060qtf.46.2020.04.24.07.23.43 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 24 Apr 2020 07:23:43 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Mark Johnston Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2020 10:23:41 -0400 From: Mark Johnston To: Tom Jones Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, freebsd-transport@freebsd.org Subject: Re: How to enable tcp bbr in FreeBSD??? Message-ID: <20200424142341.GB17086@raichu> References: <20200424141508.GB78595@tom-desk.erg.abdn.ac.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200424141508.GB78595@tom-desk.erg.abdn.ac.uk> X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 497xHP2QXZz4R8P X-Spamd-Bar: ----- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; none X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-6.00 / 15.00]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; REPLY(-4.00)[] X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2020 14:23:45 -0000 On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 03:15:08PM +0100, Tom Jones wrote: > rrs@freebsd.org > Bcc: > Subject: Re: How to enable tcp bbr in FreeBSD??? > Reply-To: > In-Reply-To: <6042155a-297b-d85e-1d64-24d93da329a2@gmail.com> > > > ... snip ... > > > > Maybe it is not ready for prime time, i do not know why it is not in the > > default build. > > Maybe ask the committer. > > > > I have added rrs@ in cc and the freebsd-transport list. > > Does anyone know if there are plans to enable alternate TCP stacks in > generic? > > Is there a stability point we need to hit first? There are a couple of open bugs found by syzkaller (complete with reproducers) that appeared when I enabled the alternate TCP stacks: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?id=986b4cecd84439df9794bda1a45d9cf0f50356fe https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?id=048f650e99696f881872a285cef0e3b9bd4f4e25 I'd expect these to be fixed before providing the alternate stacks in GENERIC.