6.10-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
------------------
From: Kuniyuki Iwashima kuniyu@amazon.com
[ Upstream commit 23e89e8ee7be73e21200947885a6d3a109a2c58d ]
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 Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin sashal@kernel.org --- net/ipv4/tcp_input.c | 9 +++++++++ 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
diff --git a/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c b/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c index 2c52f6dcbd29..e0d870d3c9b8 100644 --- a/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c +++ b/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c @@ -6004,6 +6004,11 @@ static bool tcp_validate_incoming(struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb, * RFC 5961 4.2 : Send a challenge ack */ if (th->syn) { + if (sk->sk_state == TCP_SYN_RECV && sk->sk_socket && th->ack && + TCP_SKB_CB(skb)->seq + 1 == TCP_SKB_CB(skb)->end_seq && + TCP_SKB_CB(skb)->seq + 1 == tp->rcv_nxt && + TCP_SKB_CB(skb)->ack_seq == tp->snd_nxt) + goto pass; syn_challenge: if (syn_inerr) TCP_INC_STATS(sock_net(sk), TCP_MIB_INERRS); @@ -6013,6 +6018,7 @@ static bool tcp_validate_incoming(struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb, goto discard; }
+pass: bpf_skops_parse_hdr(sk, skb);
return true; @@ -6819,6 +6825,9 @@ tcp_rcv_state_process(struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb) tcp_fast_path_on(tp); if (sk->sk_shutdown & SEND_SHUTDOWN) tcp_shutdown(sk, SEND_SHUTDOWN); + + if (sk->sk_socket) + goto consume; break;
case TCP_FIN_WAIT1: {