[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1338367497.7747.72.camel@localhost>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 10:44:57 +0200
From: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>
To: christoph.paasch@...ouvain.be
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Martin Topholm <mph@...h.dk>, Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>,
opurdila@...acom.com,
Hans Schillstrom <hans.schillstrom@...csson.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] Faster/parallel SYN handling to mitigate SYN
floods
On Tue, 2012-05-29 at 22:36 +0200, Christoph Paasch wrote:
[...cut...]
> >> Concerning (2):
> >>
> >> Imagine, a SYN coming in, when the reqsk-queue is not yet full. A
> >> request-sock will be added to the reqsk-queue. Then, a retransmission of
> >> this SYN comes in and the queue got full by the time. This time
> >> tcp_v4_syn_conn_limit will do syn-cookies and thus generate a different
> >> seq-number for the SYN/ACK.
> >
> > I have addressed your issue, by checking the reqsk_queue in
> > tcp_v4_syn_conn_limit() before allocating a new req via
> > inet_reqsk_alloc().
> > If I find an existing reqsk, I choose to drop it, so the SYN cookie
> > SYN-ACK takes precedence, as the path/handling of the last ACK doesn't
> > find this reqsk. This is done under the lock.
>
> Then the receiver will receive two SYN/ACK's for the same SYN with
> different sequence-numbers. As the "SYN cookie SYN-ACK" will arrive
> second, it will be discarded and seq-numbers from the first one will be
> taken on the client-side.
I thought that the retransmitted SYN packet, were caused by the SYN-ACK
didn't reach the client?
> Then, the connection will never establish, as both sides "agreed" on
> different sequence numbers.
>
> I would say, you have to handle the retransmitted SYN as in
> tcp_v4_hnd_req by calling tcp_check_req.
Choosing that code path, should be easy by simply returning 0 (no_limit)
from my function tcp_v4_syn_conn_limit(), to indicate that the normal
slow code path should be chosen.
I guess this will not pose a big attack angle, as the entries in
reqsk_queue will be fairly small.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists