Re: Badness at net/ipv4/inet_connection_sock.c:293

From: Eric Dumazet
Date: Mon Dec 14 2009 - 12:34:19 EST


Le 14/12/2009 08:45, David Miller a écrit :
> From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 06:56:31 +0100
>
>> It seems to me tcp_create_openreq_child() doesnt properly initialize
>> newtp->cookie_values to NULL, but this should not produce warnings like that ?
>
> If oldtp->cookie_values is NULL, the child's should be as well
> because of sk_clone().

Right, maybe then its a tcp_ack() or a syncookie validation change ?


tcp_v4_rcv()
bh_lock_sock_nested(sk);
if (!sock_owned_by_user(sk)) {

-> tcp_v4_do_rcv()
-> tcp_v4_hnd_req()
-> cookie_v4_check()
-> get_cookie_sock()
-> child = syn_recv_sock()
-> inet_csk_reqsk_queue_add(child) (TCP_SYN_RECV socket queued into parent)
-> tcp_child_process() (backlog... not)
-> tcp_rcv_state_process()
-> acceptable = tcp_ack() > 0;
-> if (acceptable) -> sk_state = TCP_ESTABLISHED
(but if tcp_ack() returned <= 0, state unchanged : TCP_SYN_RECV)


And commit 96e0bf4b5193d0d97d139f99e2dd128763d55521
(tcp: Discard segments that ack data not yet sent)

Did change this area a bit :

@@ -5632,7 +5639,7 @@ int tcp_rcv_state_process(struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb,

/* step 5: check the ACK field */
if (th->ack) {
- int acceptable = tcp_ack(sk, skb, FLAG_SLOWPATH);
+ int acceptable = tcp_ack(sk, skb, FLAG_SLOWPATH) > 0;

switch (sk->sk_state) {
case TCP_SYN_RECV:



--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/