[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20121226.141154.115080358245263295.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2012 14:11:54 -0800 (PST)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: eric.dumazet@...il.com
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, zhiyunq@...ch.edu, nanditad@...gle.com,
ncardwell@...gle.com, john.dykstra1@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tcp: should drop incoming frames without ACK flag set
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2012 09:10:01 -0800
> @@ -5540,6 +5540,9 @@ no_ack:
> }
>
> slow_path:
> + if (!th->ack)
> + goto discard;
One too many tabs there on that last line :-)
> +
> if (len < (th->doff << 2) || tcp_checksum_complete_user(sk, skb))
> goto csum_error;
>
> @@ -5551,7 +5554,7 @@ slow_path:
Also, I would say that this checksum test should come first, because
that takes priority since you could be testing the ACK bit of a
corrupted packet.
Better to get the statistic bump on the bad checksum then a silent
drop on the ACK being cleared.
> @@ -5984,11 +5987,15 @@ int tcp_rcv_state_process(struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb,
> if (tcp_check_req(sk, skb, req, NULL, true) == NULL)
> goto discard;
> }
> +
> + if (!th->ack)
> + goto discard;
> +
And that is effectively what is going to happen in this case since
the caller has already done the checksum checks.
Thanks.
--
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