diff options
author | Guillaume Nault <gnault@redhat.com> | 2019-12-06 12:38:43 +0100 |
---|---|---|
committer | Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> | 2019-12-21 10:47:37 +0100 |
commit | 12f1107bd7fdb15f144575ce391e7571db8098bf (patch) | |
tree | e56c7999f869fb2e4f1624fbf0275badc1c3e9b9 /include/net | |
parent | 9a8f9033dde9094f069af6d1b4e0c753b40b5dc4 (diff) |
tcp: tighten acceptance of ACKs not matching a child socket
[ Upstream commit cb44a08f8647fd2e8db5cc9ac27cd8355fa392d8 ]
When no synflood occurs, the synflood timestamp isn't updated.
Therefore it can be so old that time_after32() can consider it to be
in the future.
That's a problem for tcp_synq_no_recent_overflow() as it may report
that a recent overflow occurred while, in fact, it's just that jiffies
has grown past 'last_overflow' + TCP_SYNCOOKIE_VALID + 2^31.
Spurious detection of recent overflows lead to extra syncookie
verification in cookie_v[46]_check(). At that point, the verification
should fail and the packet dropped. But we should have dropped the
packet earlier as we didn't even send a syncookie.
Let's refine tcp_synq_no_recent_overflow() to report a recent overflow
only if jiffies is within the
[last_overflow, last_overflow + TCP_SYNCOOKIE_VALID] interval. This
way, no spurious recent overflow is reported when jiffies wraps and
'last_overflow' becomes in the future from the point of view of
time_after32().
However, if jiffies wraps and enters the
[last_overflow, last_overflow + TCP_SYNCOOKIE_VALID] interval (with
'last_overflow' being a stale synflood timestamp), then
tcp_synq_no_recent_overflow() still erroneously reports an
overflow. In such cases, we have to rely on syncookie verification
to drop the packet. We unfortunately have no way to differentiate
between a fresh and a stale syncookie timestamp.
In practice, using last_overflow as lower bound is problematic.
If the synflood timestamp is concurrently updated between the time
we read jiffies and the moment we store the timestamp in
'last_overflow', then 'now' becomes smaller than 'last_overflow' and
tcp_synq_no_recent_overflow() returns true, potentially dropping a
valid syncookie.
Reading jiffies after loading the timestamp could fix the problem,
but that'd require a memory barrier. Let's just accommodate for
potential timestamp growth instead and extend the interval using
'last_overflow - HZ' as lower bound.
Signed-off-by: Guillaume Nault <gnault@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Diffstat (limited to 'include/net')
-rw-r--r-- | include/net/tcp.h | 10 |
1 files changed, 9 insertions, 1 deletions
diff --git a/include/net/tcp.h b/include/net/tcp.h index 2424026a6530..2c47947eac07 100644 --- a/include/net/tcp.h +++ b/include/net/tcp.h @@ -512,7 +512,15 @@ static inline bool tcp_synq_no_recent_overflow(const struct sock *sk) { unsigned long last_overflow = tcp_sk(sk)->rx_opt.ts_recent_stamp; - return time_after(jiffies, last_overflow + TCP_SYNCOOKIE_VALID); + /* If last_overflow <= jiffies <= last_overflow + TCP_SYNCOOKIE_VALID, + * then we're under synflood. However, we have to use + * 'last_overflow - HZ' as lower bound. That's because a concurrent + * tcp_synq_overflow() could update .ts_recent_stamp after we read + * jiffies but before we store .ts_recent_stamp into last_overflow, + * which could lead to rejecting a valid syncookie. + */ + return !time_between32(jiffies, last_overflow - HZ, + last_overflow + TCP_SYNCOOKIE_VALID); } static inline u32 tcp_cookie_time(void) |