netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] tcp: Revert no longer abort 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]

Message-ID: <CANn89iKcStXqo9rxpO_Dq3HQ0Sj8Ce_5YmjaKx7n9EF+9GjTmA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2024 19:33:23 +0100
From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
To: Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
Cc: Gal Pressman <gal@...dia.com>, David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>, 
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, 
	Shachar Kagan <skagan@...dia.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, 
	Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@...il.com>, 
	"Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis)" <regressions@...mhuis.info>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] tcp: Revert no longer abort SYN_SENT when
 receiving some ICMP

On Tue, Jan 2, 2024 at 7:01 PM Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 02, 2024 at 04:31:15PM +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 2, 2024 at 12:41 PM Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jan 02, 2024 at 11:03:55AM +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jan 2, 2024 at 10:58 AM Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Jan 02, 2024 at 10:46:13AM +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > > > > > On Tue, Jan 2, 2024 at 10:01 AM Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > From: Shachar Kagan <skagan@...dia.com>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This reverts commit 0a8de364ff7a14558e9676f424283148110384d6.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Shachar reported that Vagrant (https://www.vagrantup.com/), which is
> > > > > > > very popular tool to manage fleet of VMs stopped to work after commit
> > > > > > > citied in Fixes line.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The issue appears while using Vagrant to manage nested VMs.
> > > > > > > The steps are:
> > > > > > > * create vagrant file
> > > > > > > * vagrant up
> > > > > > > * vagrant halt (VM is created but shut down)
> > > > > > > * vagrant up - fail
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I would rather have an explanation, instead of reverting a valid patch.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have been on vacation for some time. I may have missed a detailed
> > > > > > explanation, please repost if needed.
> > > > >
> > > > > Our detailed explanation that revert worked. You provided the patch that
> > > > > broke, so please let's not require from users to debug it.
> > > > >
> > > > > If you need a help to reproduce and/or test some hypothesis, Shachar
> > > > > will be happy to help you, just ask.
> > > >
> > > > I have asked already, and received files that showed no ICMP relevant
> > > > interactions.
> > > >
> > > > Can someone from your team help Shachar to get  a packet capture of
> > > > both TCP _and_ ICMP packets ?
> > >
> > > I or Gal will help her, but for now let's revert it, before we will see
> > > this breakage in merge window and later in all other branches which will
> > > be based on -rc1.
> >
> > Patch is in net-next, we have at least four weeks to find the root cause.
>
> I saw more than once claims that netdev is fast to take patches but also
> fast in reverts. There is no need to keep patch with known regression,
> while we are in -rc8.

This patch is not in rc8, unless I am mistaken ?

>
> >
> > I am a TCP maintainer, I will ask you to respect my choice, we have
> > tests and reverting the patch is breaking one of them.
>
> At least for ipv6, you changed code from 2016 and the patch which I'm asking
> to revert is not even marked as a fix. So I don't understand the urgency to keep
> the patch.

Do you have an issue with IPv4 code or IPv6 ?

It would help to have details.
>
> There are two things to consider:
> 1. Linux rule number one is "do not break userspace".

No released kernel contains the issue yet. Nothing broke yet.

net-next is for developers.

> 2. Linux is a community project and people can have different opinions,
> which can be different from your/mine.
>
> Thanks

I think we have time, and getting this patch with potential users on
it will help to debug the issue.