Re: [net-next,v10,09/15] quic: add congestion control
From: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>
Date: 2026-03-03 08:32:41
Also in:
linux-cifs
This is an AI-generated review of your patch. The human sending this email has considered the AI review valid, or at least plausible. For local reproduction steps see https://netdev-ai.bots.linux.dev/ai-local.html --- quic: add congestion control This patch introduces quic_cong for RTT measurement and congestion control, implementing a state machine with slow start, congestion avoidance, and recovery phases using the New Reno algorithm. Signed-off-by: Xin Long <lucien.xin@gmail.com>
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
diff --git a/net/quic/Makefile b/net/quic/Makefile index 1565fb5cef9d..4d4a42c6d565 100644 --- a/net/quic/Makefile +++ b/net/quic/Makefile@@ -5,4 +5,5 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_IP_QUIC) += quic.o -quic-y := common.o family.o protocol.o socket.o stream.o connid.o path.o +quic-y := common.o family.o protocol.o socket.o stream.o connid.o path.o \ + cong.odiff --git a/net/quic/cong.c b/net/quic/cong.c new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..e0f78ecb00e4 --- /dev/null +++ b/net/quic/cong.c
[ ... ]
+static void quic_reno_on_packet_lost(struct quic_cong *cong, u64 time, u32 bytes, s64 number)
+{
+ if (quic_cong_check_persistent_congestion(cong, time))
+ return;
+
+ switch (cong->state) {
+ case QUIC_CONG_SLOW_START:
+ pr_debug("%s: slow_start -> recovery, cwnd: %u, ssthresh: %u\n",
+ __func__, cong->window, cong->ssthresh);
+ break;
+ case QUIC_CONG_RECOVERY_PERIOD:
+ return;
+ case QUIC_CONG_CONGESTION_AVOIDANCE:
+ pr_debug("%s: cong_avoid -> recovery, cwnd: %u, ssthresh: %u\n",
+ __func__, cong->window, cong->ssthresh);
+ break;
+ default:
+ pr_debug("%s: wrong congestion state: %d\n", __func__, cong->state);
+ return;
+ }
+
+ cong->recovery_time = cong->time;
+ cong->state = QUIC_CONG_RECOVERY_PERIOD;
+ cong->ssthresh = max(cong->window >> 1U, cong->min_window);
+ cong->window = cong->ssthresh;
+}[ ... ]
+static void quic_reno_on_process_ecn(struct quic_cong *cong)
+{
+ switch (cong->state) {
+ case QUIC_CONG_SLOW_START:
+ pr_debug("%s: slow_start -> recovery, cwnd: %u, ssthresh: %u\n",
+ __func__, cong->window, cong->ssthresh);
+ break;
+ case QUIC_CONG_RECOVERY_PERIOD:
+ return;
+ case QUIC_CONG_CONGESTION_AVOIDANCE:
+ pr_debug("%s: cong_avoid -> recovery, cwnd: %u, ssthresh: %u\n",
+ __func__, cong->window, cong->ssthresh);
+ break;
+ default:
+ pr_debug("%s: wrong congestion state: %d\n", __func__, cong->state);
+ return;
+ }
+
+ cong->recovery_time = cong->time;
+ cong->state = QUIC_CONG_RECOVERY_PERIOD;
+ cong->ssthresh = max(cong->window >> 1U, cong->min_window);
+ cong->window = cong->ssthresh;
+}
This isn't a bug, but these two functions share almost identical logic
for entering the recovery state. The switch statement has the same three
cases with identical handling in both functions, and the four-line
recovery-entry block at the end is exactly the same:
cong->recovery_time = cong->time;
cong->state = QUIC_CONG_RECOVERY_PERIOD;
cong->ssthresh = max(cong->window >> 1U, cong->min_window);
cong->window = cong->ssthresh;
The only difference is quic_reno_on_packet_lost() checks for persistent
congestion first. Would factoring this shared logic into a helper
function make future maintenance easier and ensure the recovery path
stays consistent across both ECN and loss events?
[ ... ]
+void quic_cong_set_algo(struct quic_cong *cong, u8 algo)
+{
+ /* The caller must ensure algo < QUIC_CONG_ALG_MAX. */
+ cong->algo = algo;
+ cong->state = QUIC_CONG_SLOW_START;
+ cong->ssthresh = U32_MAX;
+ cong->ops = &quic_congs[algo];
+ cong->ops->on_init(cong);
+}Should this function validate the algo parameter? The comment says the caller must ensure algo is less than QUIC_CONG_ALG_MAX, but there's no runtime check. Since QUIC_CONG_ALG_MAX is defined in the UAPI and this function is exported in cong.h, could a future caller (for example, a setsockopt path accepting user-supplied algorithm choices) pass an out-of-range value and cause an out-of-bounds array access into quic_congs[]? [ ... ]