netdev - Re: [PATCH] net: netperf TCP_CRR test fails in bonding interfaces(mode 0)

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2023 09:45:47 +0100
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: ditang chen <ditang.c@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: netperf TCP_CRR test fails in bonding
 interfaces(mode 0)


On 12/10/23 16:16, ditang chen wrote:
> Reproduce
> 1. client/server:
> # modprobe bonding
> # ifconfig enp1s3 down
> # ifconfig enp2s3 down
> # echo "+bond0" > /sys/class/net/bonding_masters
> # edho "enp1s3" > /sys/class/net/bond0/bonding/slaves
> # edho "enp2s3" > /sys/class/net/bond0/bonding/slaves
> # ifconfig bond0 up
>
> 2. server
> # ifconfig bond0 192.168.50.101
> # netserver -D -d -f
>
> 3. client
> # ifconfig bond0 192.168.50.100
> # netperf -t TCP_CRR -H 192.168.50.101 -l 3600
>
> netperf may terminated with "netperf:send_omni:recv_data failed:
> Connection reset by peer".
> the client correctly establishes connection and then send its
> data(psh+ack), but if the server process the data(psh+ack) before the
> ack, and then server side just resets connection.
>
> ---
> diff --git a/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c b/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c
> index 8afb0950a697..630bbe78539f 100644
> --- a/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c
> +++ b/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c
> @@ -6502,8 +6502,11 @@ int tcp_rcv_state_process(struct sock *sk,
> struct sk_buff *skb)
>                  goto discard;
>
>          case TCP_LISTEN:
> -               if (th->ack)
> +               if (th->ack) {
> +                       if (th->psh)
> +                               goto discard;
>                          return 1;
> +               }


This seems to be an invalid patch.

Please tell us which RFC would mandate such a thing...

It would help if you could cook a packetdrill test demonstrating the issue.

Also make sure to cc me next time (edumazet@...gle.com)