| 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: <CAL+tcoC8LBQGe7ES01bxKFkU15GoFpEgT5jx1tnwb2Yb_BOKfw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2024 14:51:53 +0800
From: Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@...il.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Cc: jmaloy@...hat.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net,
kuba@...nel.org, passt-dev@...st.top, sbrivio@...hat.com, lvivier@...hat.com,
dgibson@...hat.com, eric.dumazet@...il.com, menglong8.dong@...il.com,
dongmenglong.8@...edance.com
Subject: Re: [net-next 2/2] tcp: correct handling of extreme menory squeeze
On Sun, Apr 7, 2024 at 2:38 AM Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Apr 6, 2024 at 8:21 PM <jmaloy@...hat.com> wrote:
> >
> > From: Jon Maloy <jmaloy@...hat.com>
> >
> > Testing of the previous commit ("tcp: add support for SO_PEEK_OFF")
> > in this series along with the pasta protocol splicer revealed a bug in
> > the way tcp handles window advertising during extreme memory squeeze
> > situations.
> >
> > The excerpt of the below logging session shows what is happeing:
> >
> > [5201<->54494]: ==== Activating log @ tcp_select_window()/268 ====
> > [5201<->54494]: (inet_csk(sk)->icsk_ack.pending & ICSK_ACK_NOMEM) --> TRUE
> > [5201<->54494]: tcp_select_window(<-) tp->rcv_wup: 2812454294, tp->rcv_wnd: 5812224, tp->rcv_nxt 2818016354, returning 0
> > [5201<->54494]: ADVERTISING WINDOW SIZE 0
> > [5201<->54494]: __tcp_transmit_skb(<-) tp->rcv_wup: 2812454294, tp->rcv_wnd: 5812224, tp->rcv_nxt 2818016354
> >
> > [5201<->54494]: tcp_recvmsg_locked(->)
> > [5201<->54494]: __tcp_cleanup_rbuf(->) tp->rcv_wup: 2812454294, tp->rcv_wnd: 5812224, tp->rcv_nxt 2818016354
> > [5201<->54494]: (win_now: 250164, new_win: 262144 >= (2 * win_now): 500328))? --> time_to_ack: 0
> > [5201<->54494]: NOT calling tcp_send_ack()
> > [5201<->54494]: __tcp_cleanup_rbuf(<-) tp->rcv_wup: 2812454294, tp->rcv_wnd: 5812224, tp->rcv_nxt 2818016354
> > [5201<->54494]: tcp_recvmsg_locked(<-) returning 131072 bytes, window now: 250164, qlen: 83
> >
> > [...]
>
> I would prefer a packetdrill test, it is not clear what is happening...
>
> In particular, have you used SO_RCVBUF ?
>
> >
> > [5201<->54494]: tcp_recvmsg_locked(->)
> > [5201<->54494]: __tcp_cleanup_rbuf(->) tp->rcv_wup: 2812454294, tp->rcv_wnd: 5812224, tp->rcv_nxt 2818016354
> > [5201<->54494]: (win_now: 250164, new_win: 262144 >= (2 * win_now): 500328))? --> time_to_ack: 0
> > [5201<->54494]: NOT calling tcp_send_ack()
> > [5201<->54494]: __tcp_cleanup_rbuf(<-) tp->rcv_wup: 2812454294, tp->rcv_wnd: 5812224, tp->rcv_nxt 2818016354
> > [5201<->54494]: tcp_recvmsg_locked(<-) returning 131072 bytes, window now: 250164, qlen: 1
> >
> > [5201<->54494]: tcp_recvmsg_locked(->)
> > [5201<->54494]: __tcp_cleanup_rbuf(->) tp->rcv_wup: 2812454294, tp->rcv_wnd: 5812224, tp->rcv_nxt 2818016354
> > [5201<->54494]: (win_now: 250164, new_win: 262144 >= (2 * win_now): 500328))? --> time_to_ack: 0
> > [5201<->54494]: NOT calling tcp_send_ack()
> > [5201<->54494]: __tcp_cleanup_rbuf(<-) tp->rcv_wup: 2812454294, tp->rcv_wnd: 5812224, tp->rcv_nxt 2818016354
> > [5201<->54494]: tcp_recvmsg_locked(<-) returning 57036 bytes, window now: 250164, qlen: 0
> >
> > [5201<->54494]: tcp_recvmsg_locked(->)
> > [5201<->54494]: __tcp_cleanup_rbuf(->) tp->rcv_wup: 2812454294, tp->rcv_wnd: 5812224, tp->rcv_nxt 2818016354
> > [5201<->54494]: NOT calling tcp_send_ack()
> > [5201<->54494]: __tcp_cleanup_rbuf(<-) tp->rcv_wup: 2812454294, tp->rcv_wnd: 5812224, tp->rcv_nxt 2818016354
> > [5201<->54494]: tcp_recvmsg_locked(<-) returning -11 bytes, window now: 250164, qlen: 0
> >
> > We can see that although we are adverising a window size of zero,
> > tp->rcv_wnd is not updated accordingly. This leads to a discrepancy
> > between this side's and the peer's view of the current window size.
> > - The peer thinks the window is zero, and stops sending.
> > - This side ends up in a cycle where it repeatedly caclulates a new
> > window size it finds too small to advertise.
> >
> > Hence no messages are received, and no acknowledges are sent, and
> > the situation remains locked even after the last queued receive buffer
> > has been consumed.
> >
> > We fix this by setting tp->rcv_wnd to 0 before we return from the
> > function tcp_select_window() in this particular case.
> > Further testing shows that the connection recovers neatly from the
> > squeeze situation, and traffic can continue indefinitely.
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@...hat.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Jon Maloy <jmaloy@...hat.com>
> > ---
> > net/ipv4/tcp_output.c | 14 +++++++++-----
> > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/net/ipv4/tcp_output.c b/net/ipv4/tcp_output.c
> > index 9282fafc0e61..57ead8f3c334 100644
> > --- a/net/ipv4/tcp_output.c
> > +++ b/net/ipv4/tcp_output.c
> > @@ -263,11 +263,15 @@ static u16 tcp_select_window(struct sock *sk)
> > u32 cur_win, new_win;
> >
> > /* Make the window 0 if we failed to queue the data because we
> > - * are out of memory. The window is temporary, so we don't store
> > - * it on the socket.
> > + * are out of memory. The window needs to be stored in the socket
> > + * for the connection to recover.
> > */
> > - if (unlikely(inet_csk(sk)->icsk_ack.pending & ICSK_ACK_NOMEM))
> > - return 0;
> > + if (unlikely(inet_csk(sk)->icsk_ack.pending & ICSK_ACK_NOMEM)) {
> > + new_win = 0;
> > + tp->rcv_wnd = 0;
> > + tp->rcv_wup = tp->rcv_nxt;
> > + goto out;
> > + }
> >
> > cur_win = tcp_receive_window(tp);
> > new_win = __tcp_select_window(sk);
> > @@ -301,7 +305,7 @@ static u16 tcp_select_window(struct sock *sk)
> >
> > /* RFC1323 scaling applied */
> > new_win >>= tp->rx_opt.rcv_wscale;
> > -
> > +out:
> > /* If we advertise zero window, disable fast path. */
> > if (new_win == 0) {
> > tp->pred_flags = 0;
> > --
> > 2.42.0
> >
>
> Any particular reason to not cc Menglong Dong ?
> (I just did)
He is not working at Tencent any more. Let me CC here one more time.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists