netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v1] 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAMaK5_h0pdwbKGcZ-xmVULnxeJ=r0QrDeGepYuar=67n0spuHQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2025 23:06:01 +0800
From: Xin Guo <guoxin0309@...il.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Cc: ncardwell@...gle.com, davem@...emloft.net, dsahern@...nel.org, 
	kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v1] tcp: fix tcp_ofo_queue() to avoid including
 too much DUP SACK range

Thanks Eric, have a nice day.

Regards
Guo Xin.

On Thu, Jun 26, 2025 at 5:31 PM Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 9:03 AM Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 8:37 AM xin.guo <guoxin0309@...il.com> 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
> > >
> > > After this fix, the step6 is as below:
> > > 6. server.8080 > client.43629: Flags [.], ack 2001, win 65535,
> > > options [nop,nop,TS val 269383722 ecr 200,nop,nop,sack 1 {501:1001}],
> > > length 0
> >
> > I am not convinced this is the expected output ?
> >
> > If this is a DUP SACK, it should be :
> >
> > Flags [.], ack 2001, win 65535, ... sack 2 {1501:2001} {501:1001} ....
> >
> >
>
> >
> > At a first glance, bug is in tcp_dsack_extend()
>
> After more thoughts and RFC 2883 read, I think your patch is correct.
>
> I will include it in a series with two packetdrill tests, and another fix.
> I will add appropriate Fixes: tag
>
> Thanks !