[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANn89i+sj9w+W3Mx-UsmaWzq_GcLwr=FQkHC61_2eBbvpVQQ1g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2022 16:14:39 -0800
From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
To: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
Cc: Jamie Bainbridge <jamie.bainbridge@...il.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] tcp: Add listening address to SYN flood message
On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 4:11 PM Stephen Hemminger
<stephen@...workplumber.org> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 10:59:52 +1100
> Jamie Bainbridge <jamie.bainbridge@...il.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 at 04:20, Stephen Hemminger
> > <stephen@...workplumber.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, 11 Nov 2022 14:59:32 +1100
> > > Jamie Bainbridge <jamie.bainbridge@...il.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > + xchg(&queue->synflood_warned, 1) == 0) {
> > > > + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_IPV6) && sk->sk_family == AF_INET6) {
> > > > + net_info_ratelimited("%s: Possible SYN flooding on port %pI6c.%u. %s.\n",
> > > > + proto, &sk->sk_v6_rcv_saddr,
> > > > + sk->sk_num, msg);
> > > > + } else {
> > > > + net_info_ratelimited("%s: Possible SYN flooding on port %pI4.%u. %s.\n",
> > > > + proto, &sk->sk_rcv_saddr,
> > > > + sk->sk_num, msg);
> > >
> > > Minor nit, the standard format for printing addresses would be to use colon seperator before port
> > >
> > > if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_IPV6) && sk->sk_family == AF_INET6) {
> > > net_info_ratelimited("%s: Possible SYN flooding on [%pI6c]:%u. %s.\n",
> > > proto, &sk->sk_v6_rcv_saddr, sk->sk_num, msg);
> > > } else {
> > > net_info_ratelimited("%s: Possible SYN flooding on %pI4:%u. %s.\n",
> > > proto, &sk->sk_rcv_saddr, sk->sk_num, msg);
> >
> > I considered this too, though Eric suggested "IP.port" to match tcpdump.
>
> That works, if it happens I doubt it matters.
Note that "ss dst" really needs the [] notation for IPv6
ss -t dst "[::1]"
State Recv-Q Send-Q
Local Address:Port Peer Address:Port
Process
CLOSE-WAIT 1 0
[::1]:50584 [::1]:ipp
So we have inconsistency anyway...
As you said, no strong opinion.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists