| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <alpine.OSX.2.22.394.2005141258520.26234@aabousam-mobl1.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 14 May 2020 13:13:31 -0700 (PDT)
From: Mat Martineau <mathew.j.martineau@...ux.intel.com>
To: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Christoph Paasch <cpaasch@...le.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/3] mptcp: add new sock flag to deal with join
subflows
Paolo -
On Wed, 13 May 2020, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> MP_JOIN subflows must not land into the accept queue.
> Currently tcp_check_req() calls an mptcp specific helper
> to detect such scenario.
>
> Such helper leverages the subflow context to check for
> MP_JOIN subflows. We need to deal also with MP JOIN
> failures, even when the subflow context is not available
> due allocation failure.
>
> A possible solution would be changing the syn_recv_sock()
> signature to allow returning a more descriptive action/
> error code and deal with that in tcp_check_req().
>
> Since the above need is MPTCP specific, this patch instead
> uses a TCP request socket hole to add a MPTCP specific flag.
> Such flag is used by the MPTCP syn_recv_sock() to tell
> tcp_check_req() how to deal with the request socket.
>
> This change is a no-op for !MPTCP build, and makes the
> MPTCP code simpler. It allows also the next patch to deal
> correctly with MP JOIN failure.
>
> RFC -> v1:
> - move the drop_req bit inside tcp_request_sock (Eric)
>
> Signed-off-by: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
> ---
> include/linux/tcp.h | 3 +++
> include/net/mptcp.h | 17 ++++++++++-------
> net/ipv4/tcp_minisocks.c | 2 +-
> net/mptcp/protocol.c | 7 -------
> net/mptcp/subflow.c | 2 ++
> 5 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/tcp.h b/include/linux/tcp.h
> index e60db06ec28d..bf44e85d709d 100644
> --- a/include/linux/tcp.h
> +++ b/include/linux/tcp.h
> @@ -120,6 +120,9 @@ struct tcp_request_sock {
> u64 snt_synack; /* first SYNACK sent time */
> bool tfo_listener;
> bool is_mptcp;
> +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_MPTCP)
> + bool drop_req;
> +#endif
> u32 txhash;
> u32 rcv_isn;
> u32 snt_isn;
> diff --git a/include/net/mptcp.h b/include/net/mptcp.h
> index e60275659de6..c4a6ef4ba35b 100644
> --- a/include/net/mptcp.h
> +++ b/include/net/mptcp.h
> @@ -68,6 +68,11 @@ static inline bool rsk_is_mptcp(const struct request_sock *req)
> return tcp_rsk(req)->is_mptcp;
> }
>
> +static inline bool rsk_drop_req(const struct request_sock *req)
> +{
> + return tcp_rsk(req)->is_mptcp && tcp_rsk(req)->drop_req;
> +}
> +
> void mptcp_space(const struct sock *ssk, int *space, int *full_space);
> bool mptcp_syn_options(struct sock *sk, const struct sk_buff *skb,
> unsigned int *size, struct mptcp_out_options *opts);
> @@ -121,8 +126,6 @@ static inline bool mptcp_skb_can_collapse(const struct sk_buff *to,
> skb_ext_find(from, SKB_EXT_MPTCP));
> }
>
> -bool mptcp_sk_is_subflow(const struct sock *sk);
> -
> void mptcp_seq_show(struct seq_file *seq);
> #else
>
> @@ -140,6 +143,11 @@ static inline bool rsk_is_mptcp(const struct request_sock *req)
> return false;
> }
>
> +static inline bool rsk_drop_req(const struct request_sock *req)
> +{
> + return false;
> +}
> +
> static inline void mptcp_parse_option(const struct sk_buff *skb,
> const unsigned char *ptr, int opsize,
> struct tcp_options_received *opt_rx)
> @@ -190,11 +198,6 @@ static inline bool mptcp_skb_can_collapse(const struct sk_buff *to,
> return true;
> }
>
> -static inline bool mptcp_sk_is_subflow(const struct sock *sk)
> -{
> - return false;
> -}
> -
> static inline void mptcp_space(const struct sock *ssk, int *s, int *fs) { }
> static inline void mptcp_seq_show(struct seq_file *seq) { }
> #endif /* CONFIG_MPTCP */
> diff --git a/net/ipv4/tcp_minisocks.c b/net/ipv4/tcp_minisocks.c
> index 7e40322cc5ec..495dda2449fe 100644
> --- a/net/ipv4/tcp_minisocks.c
> +++ b/net/ipv4/tcp_minisocks.c
> @@ -774,7 +774,7 @@ struct sock *tcp_check_req(struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb,
> if (!child)
> goto listen_overflow;
>
> - if (own_req && sk_is_mptcp(child) && mptcp_sk_is_subflow(child)) {
> + if (own_req && rsk_drop_req(req)) {
> reqsk_queue_removed(&inet_csk(sk)->icsk_accept_queue, req);
> inet_csk_reqsk_queue_drop_and_put(sk, req);
> return child;
> diff --git a/net/mptcp/protocol.c b/net/mptcp/protocol.c
> index 6a812dd8b6b6..b974898eb6b5 100644
> --- a/net/mptcp/protocol.c
> +++ b/net/mptcp/protocol.c
> @@ -1687,13 +1687,6 @@ bool mptcp_finish_join(struct sock *sk)
> return ret;
> }
>
> -bool mptcp_sk_is_subflow(const struct sock *sk)
> -{
> - struct mptcp_subflow_context *subflow = mptcp_subflow_ctx(sk);
> -
> - return subflow->mp_join == 1;
> -}
> -
> static bool mptcp_memory_free(const struct sock *sk, int wake)
> {
> struct mptcp_sock *msk = mptcp_sk(sk);
> diff --git a/net/mptcp/subflow.c b/net/mptcp/subflow.c
> index 009d5c478062..42a8a650ff20 100644
> --- a/net/mptcp/subflow.c
> +++ b/net/mptcp/subflow.c
> @@ -500,6 +500,7 @@ static struct sock *subflow_syn_recv_sock(const struct sock *sk,
> ctx->remote_key = mp_opt.sndr_key;
> ctx->fully_established = mp_opt.mp_capable;
> ctx->can_ack = mp_opt.mp_capable;
> + tcp_rsk(req)->drop_req = false;
> } else if (ctx->mp_join) {
> struct mptcp_sock *owner;
>
> @@ -512,6 +513,7 @@ static struct sock *subflow_syn_recv_sock(const struct sock *sk,
> goto close_child;
>
> SUBFLOW_REQ_INC_STATS(req, MPTCP_MIB_JOINACKRX);
> + tcp_rsk(req)->drop_req = true;
> }
It looks like tcp_rsk(req)->drop_req gets initialized when the
ctx->mp_capable and ctx->mp_join values are set as expected, but it's hard
to tell if it's guaranteed to be initialized in every corner case (any
allocation or token failures, unexpected input, etc.).
Patch 3 will set drop_req for some cases, but does it makes sense to
set tcp_rsk(req)->drop_req in subflow_v{4,6}_init_req() here as an
additional 'else' clause?
> }
>
> --
> 2.21.3
>
>
--
Mat Martineau
Intel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists