[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANn89iJfnmsZHtcc7O1oQSutgC5m_Jrhkxy3EYeOxQnjz4wwUQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2025 08:36:48 +0100
From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
To: Wang Hai <wanghai38@...wei.com>
Cc: kerneljasonxing@...il.com, ncardwell@...gle.com, kuniyu@...zon.com,
davem@...emloft.net, dsahern@...nel.org, kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com,
horms@...nel.org, zhangchangzhong@...wei.com, liujian56@...wei.com,
yuehaibing@...wei.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v2] tcp: Defer ts_recent changes until req is owned
On Sat, Feb 22, 2025 at 11:41 AM Wang Hai <wanghai38@...wei.com> wrote:
>
> The same 5-tuple packet may be processed by different CPUSs, so two
> CPUs may receive different ack packets at the same time when the
> state is TCP_NEW_SYN_RECV.
>
> In that case, req->ts_recent in tcp_check_req may be changed concurrently,
> which will probably cause the newsk's ts_recent to be incorrectly large.
> So that tcp_validate_incoming will fail.
>
> cpu1 cpu2
> tcp_check_req
> tcp_check_req
> req->ts_recent = rcv_tsval = t1
> req->ts_recent = rcv_tsval = t2
>
> syn_recv_sock
> newsk->ts_recent = req->ts_recent = t2 // t1 < t2
> tcp_child_process
> tcp_rcv_state_process
> tcp_validate_incoming
> tcp_paws_check
> if ((s32)(rx_opt->ts_recent - rx_opt->rcv_tsval) <= paws_win)
> // t2 - t1 > paws_win, failed
>
> In tcp_check_req, Defer ts_recent changes to this skb's to fix this bug.
I think this sentence is a bit misleading.
What your patch does is to no longer change req->ts_recent,
but conditionally update tcp_sk(child)->rx_opt.ts_recent
>
> Fixes: 1da177e4c3f4 ("Linux-2.6.12-rc2")
> Signed-off-by: Wang Hai <wanghai38@...wei.com>
> ---
> v1->v2: Modified the fix logic based on Eric's suggestion. Also modified the msg
> net/ipv4/tcp_minisocks.c | 9 +++------
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/ipv4/tcp_minisocks.c b/net/ipv4/tcp_minisocks.c
> index b089b08e9617..53700206f498 100644
> --- a/net/ipv4/tcp_minisocks.c
> +++ b/net/ipv4/tcp_minisocks.c
> @@ -815,12 +815,6 @@ struct sock *tcp_check_req(struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb,
>
> /* In sequence, PAWS is OK. */
>
> - /* TODO: We probably should defer ts_recent change once
> - * we take ownership of @req.
> - */
> - if (tmp_opt.saw_tstamp && !after(TCP_SKB_CB(skb)->seq, tcp_rsk(req)->rcv_nxt))
> - WRITE_ONCE(req->ts_recent, tmp_opt.rcv_tsval);
> -
> if (TCP_SKB_CB(skb)->seq == tcp_rsk(req)->rcv_isn) {
> /* Truncate SYN, it is out of window starting
> at tcp_rsk(req)->rcv_isn + 1. */
> @@ -869,6 +863,9 @@ struct sock *tcp_check_req(struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb,
> if (!child)
> goto listen_overflow;
>
> + if (own_req && tmp_opt.saw_tstamp && !after(TCP_SKB_CB(skb)->seq, tcp_rsk(req)->rcv_nxt))
> + tcp_sk(child)->rx_opt.ts_recent = tmp_opt.rcv_tsval;
> +
Please split this long line.
if (own_req && tmp_opt.saw_tstamp &&
!after(TCP_SKB_CB(skb)->seq, tcp_rsk(req)->rcv_nxt))
Powered by blists - more mailing lists