netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] tcp: fix tcp_ofo_queue() to avoid including too much DUP SACK range

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: <20250623115702.76bdd8a2@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2025 11:57:02 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: "xin.guo" <guoxin0309@...il.com>
Cc: ncardwell@...gle.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] tcp: fix tcp_ofo_queue() to avoid including 
 too much DUP SACK range

On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 23:37:06 +0800 xin.guo wrote:
> If the new coming segment covers more than one skbs in the ofo queue,
> and which seq is equal to rcv_nxt , then the sequence range
> that is not duplicated will be sent as DUP SACK,  the detail as below,
> in step6, the {501,2001} range is clearly including too much
> DUP SACK range:
> 1. client.43629 > server.8080: Flags [.], seq 501:1001, ack 1325288529,
> win 20000, length 500: HTTP
> 2. server.8080 > client.43629: Flags [.], ack 1, win 65535, options
> [nop,nop,TS val 269383721 ecr 200,nop,nop,sack 1 {501:1001}], length 0
> 3. Iclient.43629 > server.8080: Flags [.], seq 1501:2001,
> ack 1325288529, win 20000, length 500: HTTP
> 4. server.8080 > client.43629: Flags [.], ack 1, win 65535, options
> [nop,nop,TS val 269383721 ecr 200,nop,nop,sack 2 {1501:2001}
> {501:1001}], length 0
> 5. client.43629 > server.8080: Flags [.], seq 1:2001,
> ack 1325288529, win 20000, length 2000: HTTP
> 6. server.8080 > client.43629: Flags [.], ack 2001, win 65535,
> options [nop,nop,TS val 269383722 ecr 200,nop,nop,sack 1 {501:2001}],
> length 0

Looks reasonable, AFAICT, tho perhaps there's some implicit benefit from
reporting end of the DSACK == rcv_next..

Could you please add the info about how the packet from step 6 looks
"after" this patch? So we have before / after comparison?

With that please resend and make sure you include _all_ maintainers that
the get_maintainer script points out. You missed CCing Eric D.
-- 
pw-bot: cr