netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v3] net: tcp: accept old ack during closing

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2024 11:01:08 +0000
From: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
To: Menglong Dong <menglong8.dong@...il.com>
Cc: edumazet@...gle.com, davem@...emloft.net, dsahern@...nel.org,
	kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3] net: tcp: accept old ack during closing

On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 12:05:19PM +0800, Menglong Dong wrote:
> For now, the packet with an old ack is not accepted if we are in
> FIN_WAIT1 state, which can cause retransmission. Taking the following
> case as an example:
> 
>     Client                               Server
>       |                                    |
>   FIN_WAIT1(Send FIN, seq=10)          FIN_WAIT1(Send FIN, seq=20, ack=10)
>       |                                    |
>       |                                Send ACK(seq=21, ack=11)
>    Recv ACK(seq=21, ack=11)
>       |
>    Recv FIN(seq=20, ack=10)
> 
> In the case above, simultaneous close is happening, and the FIN and ACK
> packet that send from the server is out of order. Then, the FIN will be
> dropped by the client, as it has an old ack. Then, the server has to
> retransmit the FIN, which can cause delay if the server has set the
> SO_LINGER on the socket.
> 
> Old ack is accepted in the ESTABLISHED and TIME_WAIT state, and I think
> it should be better to keep the same logic.
> 
> In this commit, we accept old ack in FIN_WAIT1/FIN_WAIT2/CLOSING/LAST_ACK
> states. Maybe we should limit it to FIN_WAIT1 for now?
> 
> Signed-off-by: Menglong Dong <menglong8.dong@...il.com>
> ---
> v3:
> - fix unsigned/signed compare error

Thanks for the update.

I wish this could be done without a cast.
But I do see that what you have done is
consistent with at least one other use of tcp_ack().

So from that point of view:

Reviewed-by: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>

...