3.16.83-rc1 review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
------------------
From: Pengcheng Yang yangpc@wangsu.com
commit c9655008e7845bcfdaac10a1ed8554ec167aea88 upstream.
When we receive a D-SACK, where the sequence number satisfies: undo_marker <= start_seq < end_seq <= prior_snd_una we consider this is a valid D-SACK and tcp_is_sackblock_valid() returns true, then this D-SACK is discarded as "old stuff", but the variable first_sack_index is not marked as negative in tcp_sacktag_write_queue().
If this D-SACK also carries a SACK that needs to be processed (for example, the previous SACK segment was lost), this SACK will be treated as a D-SACK in the following processing of tcp_sacktag_write_queue(), which will eventually lead to incorrect updates of undo_retrans and reordering.
Fixes: fd6dad616d4f ("[TCP]: Earlier SACK block verification & simplify access to them") Signed-off-by: Pengcheng Yang yangpc@wangsu.com Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet edumazet@google.com Signed-off-by: David S. Miller davem@davemloft.net Signed-off-by: Ben Hutchings ben@decadent.org.uk --- net/ipv4/tcp_input.c | 5 ++++- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
--- a/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c +++ b/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c @@ -1713,8 +1713,11 @@ tcp_sacktag_write_queue(struct sock *sk, }
/* Ignore very old stuff early */ - if (!after(sp[used_sacks].end_seq, prior_snd_una)) + if (!after(sp[used_sacks].end_seq, prior_snd_una)) { + if (i == 0) + first_sack_index = -1; continue; + }
used_sacks++; }