netdev - Re: [PATCH net] net: tcp: don't allocate fast clones for fastopen SYN

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 4 Mar 2021 13:08:36 -0800
From:   Jonathan Lemon <jonathan.lemon@...il.com>
To:     Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Cc:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel-team <kernel-team@...com>, Neil Spring <ntspring@...com>,
        Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net: tcp: don't allocate fast clones for fastopen SYN

On Thu, Mar 04, 2021 at 08:41:45PM +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 8:06 PM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 4 Mar 2021 13:51:15 +0100 Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > > I think we are over thinking this really (especially if the fix needs
> > > a change in core networking or drivers)
> > >
> > > We can reuse TSQ logic to have a chance to recover when the clone is
> > > eventually freed.
> > > This will be more generic, not only for the SYN+data of FastOpen.
> > >
> > > Can you please test the following patch ?
> >
> > #7 - Eric comes up with something much better :)
> >
> >
> > But so far doesn't seem to quite do it, I'm looking but maybe you'll
> > know right away (FWIW testing a v5.6 backport but I don't think TSQ
> > changed?):
> >
> > On __tcp_retransmit_skb kretprobe:
> >
> > ==> Hit TFO case ret:-16 ca_state:0 skb:ffff888fdb4bac00!
> >
> > First hit:
> >         __tcp_retransmit_skb+1
> >         tcp_rcv_state_process+2488
> >         tcp_v6_do_rcv+405
> >         tcp_v6_rcv+2984
> >         ip6_protocol_deliver_rcu+180
> >         ip6_input_finish+17
> >
> > Successful hit:
> >         __tcp_retransmit_skb+1
> >         tcp_retransmit_skb+18
> >         tcp_retransmit_timer+716
> >         tcp_write_timer_handler+136
> >         tcp_write_timer+141
> >         call_timer_fn+43
> >
> >  skb:ffff888fdb4bac00 --- delay:51642us bytes_acked:1
> 
> 
> Humm maybe one of the conditions used in tcp_tsq_write() does not hold...
> 
> if (tp->lost_out > tp->retrans_out &&
>     tp->snd_cwnd > tcp_packets_in_flight(tp)) {
>     tcp_mstamp_refresh(tp);
>     tcp_xmit_retransmit_queue(sk);
> }
> 
> Maybe FastOpen case is 'special' and tp->lost_out is wrong.


Something like this?  (completely untested)
-- 
Jonathan

diff --git a/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c b/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c
index 69a545db80d2..92bc9b0f4955 100644
--- a/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c
+++ b/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c
@@ -5995,8 +5995,10 @@ static bool tcp_rcv_fastopen_synack(struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *synack,
                else
                        tp->fastopen_client_fail = TFO_DATA_NOT_ACKED;
                skb_rbtree_walk_from(data) {
+                       tcp_mark_skb_lost(sk, data);
                        if (__tcp_retransmit_skb(sk, data, 1))
                                break;
+                       tp->retrans_out += tcp_skb_pcount(data);
                }
                tcp_rearm_rto(sk);
                NET_INC_STATS(sock_net(sk),