IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO GET AN ACCOUNT, please write an
email to Administrator. User accounts are meant only to access repo
and report issues and/or generate pull requests.
This is a purpose-specific Git hosting for
BaseALT
projects. Thank you for your understanding!
Только зарегистрированные пользователи имеют доступ к сервису!
Для получения аккаунта, обратитесь к администратору.
RFC 9293 states that in the case of simultaneous connect(), the connection
gets established when SYN+ACK is received. [0]
TCP Peer A TCP Peer B
1. CLOSED CLOSED
2. SYN-SENT --> <SEQ=100><CTL=SYN> ...
3. SYN-RECEIVED <-- <SEQ=300><CTL=SYN> <-- SYN-SENT
4. ... <SEQ=100><CTL=SYN> --> SYN-RECEIVED
5. SYN-RECEIVED --> <SEQ=100><ACK=301><CTL=SYN,ACK> ...
6. ESTABLISHED <-- <SEQ=300><ACK=101><CTL=SYN,ACK> <-- SYN-RECEIVED
7. ... <SEQ=100><ACK=301><CTL=SYN,ACK> --> ESTABLISHED
However, since commit 0c24604b68fc ("tcp: implement RFC 5961 4.2"), such a
SYN+ACK is dropped in tcp_validate_incoming() and responded with Challenge
ACK.
For example, the write() syscall in the following packetdrill script fails
with -EAGAIN, and wrong SNMP stats get incremented.
0 socket(..., SOCK_STREAM|SOCK_NONBLOCK, IPPROTO_TCP) = 3
+0 connect(3, ..., ...) = -1 EINPROGRESS (Operation now in progress)
+0 > S 0:0(0) <mss 1460,sackOK,TS val 1000 ecr 0,nop,wscale 8>
+0 < S 0:0(0) win 1000 <mss 1000>
+0 > S. 0:0(0) ack 1 <mss 1460,sackOK,TS val 3308134035 ecr 0,nop,wscale 8>
+0 < S. 0:0(0) ack 1 win 1000
+0 write(3, ..., 100) = 100
+0 > P. 1:101(100) ack 1
--
# packetdrill cross-synack.pkt
cross-synack.pkt:13: runtime error in write call: Expected result 100 but got -1 with errno 11 (Resource temporarily unavailable)
# nstat
...
TcpExtTCPChallengeACK 1 0.0
TcpExtTCPSYNChallenge 1 0.0
The problem is that bpf_skops_established() is triggered by the Challenge
ACK instead of SYN+ACK. This causes the bpf prog to miss the chance to
check if the peer supports a TCP option that is expected to be exchanged
in SYN and SYN+ACK.
Let's accept a bare SYN+ACK for active-open TCP_SYN_RECV sockets to avoid
such a situation.
Note that tcp_ack_snd_check() in tcp_rcv_state_process() is skipped not to
send an unnecessary ACK, but this could be a bit risky for net.git, so this
targets for net-next.
Link: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9293.html#section-3.5-7 [0]
Signed-off-by: Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@amazon.com>
Reviewed-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
Link: https://patch.msgid.link/20240710171246.87533-2-kuniyu@amazon.com
Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
23e89e8ee7