Re: [PATCH v2] netfilter: TCPMSS: fix dropped packets when MSS option is unaligned
From: Pablo Neira Ayuso
Date: Thu May 28 2026 - 18:55:57 EST
Hi,
On Thu, May 28, 2026 at 11:34:11PM +0100, Kacper Kokot wrote:
> Padding TCP options with NOPs is optional, so it is legal to send an
> MSS option that is not aligned to a word boundary and therefore not
> aligned for checksum calculation. The current TCPMSS target is not
> robust to this: when the MSS option is unaligned it produces an
> invalid checksum, and the packet is dropped.
Yes, but how many stacks do this?
> This has not been observed in any real environment.
... then why is this a fix?
> Senders place the MSS at the beginning of the options block, where
> it is naturally aligned, but the spec allows unaligned options and
> the kernel shouldn't silently drop legal packets.
This is questionably a "clean packet".
And "the kernel is not silently dropping anything, it is policy that
would drop it", and there are mechanisms to track what rule is
dropping this packet.
> When the changed word is not aligned, the modified bytes straddle two
> checksum words, and using the standard incremental update helper
> (which assumes alignment) produces an invalid checksum:
>
> | w1 | w2 |
> OLD | a b | c d |
> NEW | a b' | c' d |
>
> Since b' and c' sit across w1 and w2, we could compute the incremental
> checksum in two operations by recalculating w1 and then w2:
>
> C' = C - w1 + w1' - w2 + w2'
>
> But working it out:
>
> C' = C - w1 - w2 + w1' + w2'
> = C - (a * 2^8 + b) - (c * 2^8 + d)
> + (a * 2^8 + b') + (c' * 2^8 + d)
> = C + 2^8 * (a - a + c' - c) + (b' - b + d - d)
> = C + 2^8 * (c' - c) + (b' - b)
> = C - (2^8 * c + b) + (2^8 * c' + b')
>
> So an unaligned incremental checksum can be done in a single operation
> by byteswapping the changed bytes before passing them to the helper.
> This patch implements that trick for unaligned MSS option updates.
If this is a fix as the title specify, there no Fixes: tag?
To me, this qualifies as an enhancement, if anything.
Maybe more correct subject is:
"netfilter: TCPMSS: handle packets with unaligned MSS option"
since this mangling unaligned MSS has never been supported this far.
Thanks
> Signed-off-by: Kacper Kokot <kacper.kokot.44@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> I decided to go with the get_unaligned_be16 suggestion because
> it's idiomatic and it produces shorter assembly on x86-64
> (6 instructions vs 9). SYN processing is a cold path so
> I didn't look into it further.
>
> v2:
> - Use get_unaligned_be16 (Fernando's suggestion)
> - Fix alignment check expression (David)
> - Mention it's a theoretical bug in the commit message
> - Drop cc stable, the bug is only theoretical
>
> net/netfilter/xt_TCPMSS.c | 16 ++++++++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/netfilter/xt_TCPMSS.c b/net/netfilter/xt_TCPMSS.c
> index 80e1634bc51f..32c87a520361 100644
> --- a/net/netfilter/xt_TCPMSS.c
> +++ b/net/netfilter/xt_TCPMSS.c
> @ -117,8 +117,9 @@ tcpmss_mangle_packet(struct sk_buff *skb,
> for (i = sizeof(struct tcphdr); i <= tcp_hdrlen - TCPOLEN_MSS; i += optlen(opt, i)) {
> if (opt[i] == TCPOPT_MSS && opt[i+1] == TCPOLEN_MSS) {
> u_int16_t oldmss;
> + u16 csum_oldmss, csum_newmss;
>
> - oldmss = (opt[i+2] << 8) | opt[i+3];
> + oldmss = get_unaligned_be16(&opt[i+2]);
>
> /* Never increase MSS, even when setting it, as
> * doing so results in problems for hosts that rely
> @@ -130,8 +131,19 @@ tcpmss_mangle_packet(struct sk_buff *skb,
> opt[i+2] = (newmss & 0xff00) >> 8;
> opt[i+3] = newmss & 0x00ff;
>
> + csum_oldmss = htons(oldmss);
> + csum_newmss = htons(newmss);
> +
> + /* MSS may be unaligned; fix up the incremental checksum
> + * to avoid an invalid checksum and a dropped packet.
> + */
> + if (((char *)&opt[i + 2] - (char *)tcph) & 0x1) {
> + csum_oldmss = swab16(csum_oldmss);
> + csum_newmss = swab16(csum_newmss);
> + }
> +
> inet_proto_csum_replace2(&tcph->check, skb,
> - htons(oldmss), htons(newmss),
> + csum_oldmss, csum_newmss,
> false);
> return 0;
> }
> --
> 2.43.0
>