netdev - Re: [PATCH net v1 4/4] tcp: fix passive TFO socket having invalid NAPI ID

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CANn89iKT86OOm=PbT+vS+iWJh9K6f_YFEG+G5YuwCXgjMyUwwQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2025 02:28:58 -0700
From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
To: David Wei <dw@...idwei.uk>
Cc: Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuni1840@...il.com>, andrew+netdev@...n.ch, davem@...emloft.net, 
	dsahern@...nel.org, horms@...nel.org, kuba@...nel.org, kuniyu@...gle.com, 
	ncardwell@...gle.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, 
	shuah@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v1 4/4] tcp: fix passive TFO socket having invalid
 NAPI ID

On Mon, Jun 16, 2025 at 5:04 PM David Wei <dw@...idwei.uk> wrote:
>
> On 2025-06-16 16:05, Kuniyuki Iwashima wrote:
> > From: David Wei <dw@...idwei.uk>
> > Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2025 15:37:40 -0700
> >> On 2025-06-16 12:44, Kuniyuki Iwashima wrote:
> >>> From: David Wei <dw@...idwei.uk>
> >>> Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2025 11:54:56 -0700
> >>>> There is a bug with passive TFO sockets returning an invalid NAPI ID 0
> >>>> from SO_INCOMING_NAPI_ID. Normally this is not an issue, but zero copy
> >>>> receive relies on a correct NAPI ID to process sockets on the right
> >>>> queue.
> >>>>
> >>>> Fix by adding a skb_mark_napi_id().
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Please add Fixes: tag.
> >>
> >> Not sure which commit to tag as Fixes. 5b7ed089 originally created
> >> tcp_fastopen_create_child() in tcp_fastopen.c by copying from
> >> tcp_v4_conn_req_fastopen(). The bug has been around since either when
> >> TFO was added in 168a8f58 or when SO_INCOMING_NAPI_ID was added in
> >> 6d433902. What's your preference?
> >
> > 6d4339028b35 makes sense to me as SO_INCOMING_NAPI_ID (2017) was
> > not available as of the TFO commits (2012, 2014).
>
> Makes sense, I'll use 6d433902. Thanks.

Another good candidate would be

commit e5907459ce7e    tcp: Record Rx hash and NAPI ID in tcp_child_process