tcp: Don't drop SYN+ACK for simultaneous connect().

q2ven · gregkh · commit 9fd29738377c · 2024-09-12T11:11:38.000+02:00
[ Upstream commit 23e89e8 ] 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 0c24604 ("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>
diff --git a/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c b/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c
@@ -5880,6 +5880,11 @@ 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);
@@ -5889,6 +5894,7 @@ static bool tcp_validate_incoming(struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb,
 		goto discard;
 	}
 
+pass:
 	bpf_skops_parse_hdr(sk, skb);
 
 	return true;
@@ -6673,6 +6679,9 @@ int 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: {
