linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RESEND net-next v3 2/2] tcp: add LINUX_MIB_PAWS_TW

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <a3e08ca65f86dac1f741ef002af2feac69537041@linux.dev>
Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2025 15:49:59 +0000
From: "Jiayuan Chen" <jiayuan.chen@...ux.dev>
To: "Jakub Kicinski" <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: "Eric Dumazet" <edumazet@...gle.com>, bpf@...r.kernel.org, mrpre@....com,
 "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, "Paolo Abeni"
 <pabeni@...hat.com>, "Simon Horman" <horms@...nel.org>, "Jonathan Corbet"
 <corbet@....net>, "Neal Cardwell" <ncardwell@...gle.com>, "Kuniyuki 
 Iwashima" <kuniyu@...zon.com>, "David Ahern" <dsahern@...nel.org>,
 "Steffen  Klassert" <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>, "Sabrina Dubroca"
 <sd@...asysnail.net>, "Nicolas Dichtel" <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com>,
 "Antony Antony" <antony.antony@...unet.com>, "Christian Hopps"
 <chopps@...n.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND net-next v3 2/2] tcp: add
 LINUX_MIB_PAWS_TW_REJECTED counter

April 8, 2025 at 23:19, "Jakub Kicinski" <kuba@...nel.org> wrote:

> 
> On Tue, 08 Apr 2025 14:57:29 +0000 Jiayuan Chen wrote:
> > 
> > > When TCP is in TIME_WAIT state, PAWS verification uses
> >  > LINUX_PAWSESTABREJECTED, which is ambiguous and cannot be distinguished
> >  > from other PAWS verification processes.
> >  > Moreover, when PAWS occurs in TIME_WAIT, we typically need to pay special
> >  > attention to upstream network devices, so we added a new counter, like the
> >  > existing PAWS_OLD_ACK one.
> >  > 
> > 
> > 
> >  I really dislike the repetition of "upstream network devices".
> >  Is it mentioned in some RFC ? 
> >  
> >  I used this term to refer to devices that are located in the path of the
> >  TCP connection
> > 
> 
> Could we use some form of: "devices that are located in the path of the
> TCP connection" ? Maybe just "devices in the networking path" ?
> I hope that will be sufficiently clear in all contexts.
> 
> Upstream devices sounds a little like devices which have drivers in
> 
> upstream Linux kernel :(

That makes sense :).

Thanks.

> > 
> > such as firewalls, NATs, or routers, which can perform
> >  SNAT or DNAT and these network devices use addresses from their own limited
> >  address pools to masquerade the source address during forwarding, this
> >  can cause PAWS verification to fail more easily.
> > 
> >  You are right that this term is not mentioned in RFC but it's commonly used
> >  in IT infrastructure contexts. Sorry to have caused misunderstandings.
> 
> -- 
> 
> pw-bot: cr
>