netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 0/8] tcp: receiver changes

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: <9fb159c3-0151-49ac-91bf-1be8301bdf18@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2025 15:52:33 +0200
From: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@...gle.com>
Cc: Matthieu Baerts <matttbe@...nel.org>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
 Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...gle.com>,
 Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
 eric.dumazet@...il.com, "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/8] tcp: receiver changes

On 7/15/25 3:33 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jul 2025 06:28:29 -0700 Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>> # (null):17: error handling packet: timing error: expected outbound packet at 0.074144 sec but happened at -1752585909.757339 sec; tolerance 0.004000 sec
>> # script packet:  0.074144 S. 0:0(0) ack 1 <mss 1460,nop,wscale 0>
>> # actual packet: -1752585909.757339 S.0 0:0(0) ack 1 <mss 1460,nop,wscale 0>
> 
> This is definitely compiler related, I rebuilt with clang and the build
> error goes away. Now I get a more sane failure:
> 
> # tcp_rcv_big_endseq.pkt:41: error handling packet: timing error: expected outbound packet at 1.230105 sec but happened at 1.190101 sec; tolerance 0.005046 sec
> # script packet:  1.230105 . 1:1(0) ack 54001 win 0 
> # actual packet:  1.190101 . 1:1(0) ack 54001 win 0 
> 
> $ gcc --version
> gcc (GCC) 15.1.1 20250521 (Red Hat 15.1.1-2)
> 
> I don't understand why the ack is supposed to be delayed, should we
> just do this? (I think Eric is OOO, FWIW)
> 
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/net/packetdrill/tcp_rcv_big_endseq.pkt b/tools/testing/selftests/net/packetdrill/tcp_rcv_big_endseq.pkt
> index 7e170b94fd36..3848b419e68c 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/net/packetdrill/tcp_rcv_big_endseq.pkt
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/net/packetdrill/tcp_rcv_big_endseq.pkt
> @@ -38,7 +38,7 @@
>  
>  // If queue is empty, accept a packet even if its end_seq is above wup + rcv_wnd
>    +0 < P. 4001:54001(50000) ack 1 win 257
> -  +.040 > .  1:1(0) ack 54001 win 0
> +  +0 > .  1:1(0) ack 54001 win 0
>  
>  // Check LINUX_MIB_BEYOND_WINDOW has been incremented 3 times.
>  +0 `nstat | grep TcpExtBeyondWindow | grep -q " 3 "`

The above looks sane to me, but I Neal or Willem ack would be appreciated.

/P