Re: [PATCH net v2 1/2] tcp: process the 3rd ACK with sk_socket for TFO/MPTCP

From: Matthieu Baerts
Date: Tue Jul 23 2024 - 15:10:00 EST

Next message: Marco Pagani: "[PATCH] drm/test: use kunit action wrapper macro in the gem shmem test suite"
Previous message: Borah, Chaitanya Kumar: "Regression on linux-next (next-20240722)"
In reply to: Eric Dumazet: "Re: [PATCH net v2 1/2] tcp: process the 3rd ACK with sk_socket for TFO/MPTCP"
Next in thread: Kuniyuki Iwashima: "Re: [PATCH net v2 1/2] tcp: process the 3rd ACK with sk_socket for TFO/MPTCP"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Hi Eric,

On 23/07/2024 18:42, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 6:08 PM Matthieu Baerts <matttbe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Eric,
>>
>> On 23/07/2024 17:38, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 4:58 PM Matthieu Baerts <matttbe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Eric,
>>>>
>>>> +cc Neal
>>>> -cc Jerry (NoSuchUser)
>>>>
>>>> On 23/07/2024 16:37, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 12:34 PM Matthieu Baerts (NGI0)
>>>>> <matttbe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The 'Fixes' commit recently changed the behaviour of TCP by skipping the
>>>>>> processing of the 3rd ACK when a sk->sk_socket is set. The goal was to
>>>>>> skip tcp_ack_snd_check() in tcp_rcv_state_process() not to send an
>>>>>> unnecessary ACK in case of simultaneous connect(). Unfortunately, that
>>>>>> had an impact on TFO and MPTCP.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I started to look at the impact on MPTCP, because the MPTCP CI found
>>>>>> some issues with the MPTCP Packetdrill tests [1]. Then Paolo suggested
>>>>>> me to look at the impact on TFO with "plain" TCP.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For MPTCP, when receiving the 3rd ACK of a request adding a new path
>>>>>> (MP_JOIN), sk->sk_socket will be set, and point to the MPTCP sock that
>>>>>> has been created when the MPTCP connection got established before with
>>>>>> the first path. The newly added 'goto' will then skip the processing of
>>>>>> the segment text (step 7) and not go through tcp_data_queue() where the
>>>>>> MPTCP options are validated, and some actions are triggered, e.g.
>>>>>> sending the MPJ 4th ACK [2] as demonstrated by the new errors when
>>>>>> running a packetdrill test [3] establishing a second subflow.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This doesn't fully break MPTCP, mainly the 4th MPJ ACK that will be
>>>>>> delayed. Still, we don't want to have this behaviour as it delays the
>>>>>> switch to the fully established mode, and invalid MPTCP options in this
>>>>>> 3rd ACK will not be caught any more. This modification also affects the
>>>>>> MPTCP + TFO feature as well, and being the reason why the selftests
>>>>>> started to be unstable the last few days [4].
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For TFO, the existing 'basic-cookie-not-reqd' test [5] was no longer
>>>>>> passing: if the 3rd ACK contains data, and the connection is accept()ed
>>>>>> before receiving them, these data would no longer be processed, and thus
>>>>>> not ACKed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One last thing about MPTCP, in case of simultaneous connect(), a
>>>>>> fallback to TCP will be done, which seems fine:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> `../common/defaults.sh`
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 0 socket(..., SOCK_STREAM|SOCK_NONBLOCK, IPPROTO_MPTCP) = 3
>>>>>> +0 connect(3, ..., ...) = -1 EINPROGRESS (Operation now in progress)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +0 > S 0:0(0) <mss 1460, sackOK, TS val 100 ecr 0, nop, wscale 8, mpcapable v1 flags[flag_h] nokey>
>>>>>> +0 < S 0:0(0) win 1000 <mss 1460, sackOK, TS val 407 ecr 0, nop, wscale 8, mpcapable v1 flags[flag_h] nokey>
>>>>>> +0 > S. 0:0(0) ack 1 <mss 1460, sackOK, TS val 330 ecr 0, nop, wscale 8, mpcapable v1 flags[flag_h] nokey>
>>>>>> +0 < S. 0:0(0) ack 1 win 65535 <mss 1460, sackOK, TS val 700 ecr 100, nop, wscale 8, mpcapable v1 flags[flag_h] key[skey=2]>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +0 write(3, ..., 100) = 100
>>>>>> +0 > . 1:1(0) ack 1 <nop, nop, TS val 845707014 ecr 700, nop, nop, sack 0:1>
>>>>>> +0 > P. 1:101(100) ack 1 <nop, nop, TS val 845958933 ecr 700>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Simultaneous SYN-data crossing is also not supported by TFO, see [6].
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Link: https://github.com/multipath-tcp/mptcp_net-next/actions/runs/9936227696 [1]
>>>>>> Link: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8684#fig_tokens [2]
>>>>>> Link: https://github.com/multipath-tcp/packetdrill/blob/mptcp-net-next/gtests/net/mptcp/syscalls/accept.pkt#L28 [3]
>>>>>> Link: https://netdev.bots.linux.dev/contest.html?executor=vmksft-mptcp-dbg&test=mptcp-connect-sh [4]
>>>>>> Link: https://github.com/google/packetdrill/blob/master/gtests/net/tcp/fastopen/server/basic-cookie-not-reqd.pkt#L21 [5]
>>>>>> Link: https://github.com/google/packetdrill/blob/master/gtests/net/tcp/fastopen/client/simultaneous-fast-open.pkt [6]
>>>>>> Fixes: 23e89e8ee7be ("tcp: Don't drop SYN+ACK for simultaneous connect().")
>>>>>> Suggested-by: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>> Suggested-by: Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Matthieu Baerts (NGI0) <matttbe@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> Notes:
>>>>>> - We could also drop this 'goto consume', and send the unnecessary ACK
>>>>>> in this simultaneous connect case, which doesn't seem to be a "real"
>>>>>> case, more something for fuzzers. But that's not what the RFC 9293
>>>>>> recommends to do.
>>>>>> - v2:
>>>>>> - Check if the SYN bit is set instead of looking for TFO and MPTCP
>>>>>> specific attributes, as suggested by Kuniyuki.
>>>>>> - Updated the comment above
>>>>>> - Please note that the v2 has been sent mainly to satisfy the CI (to
>>>>>> be able to catch new bugs with MPTCP), and because the suggestion
>>>>>> from Kuniyuki looks better. It has not been sent to urge TCP
>>>>>> maintainers to review it quicker than it should, please take your
>>>>>> time and enjoy netdev.conf :)
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> net/ipv4/tcp_input.c | 7 ++++++-
>>>>>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c b/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c
>>>>>> index ff9ab3d01ced..bfe1bc69dc3e 100644
>>>>>> --- a/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c
>>>>>> +++ b/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c
>>>>>> @@ -6820,7 +6820,12 @@ tcp_rcv_state_process(struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb)
>>>>>> if (sk->sk_shutdown & SEND_SHUTDOWN)
>>>>>> tcp_shutdown(sk, SEND_SHUTDOWN);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - if (sk->sk_socket)
>>>>>> + /* For crossed SYN cases, not to send an unnecessary ACK.
>>>>>> + * Note that sk->sk_socket can be assigned in other cases, e.g.
>>>>>> + * with TFO (if accept()'ed before the 3rd ACK) and MPTCP (MPJ:
>>>>>> + * sk_socket is the parent MPTCP sock).
>>>>>> + */
>>>>>> + if (sk->sk_socket && th->syn)
>>>>>> goto consume;
>>>>>
>>>>> I think we should simply remove this part completely, because we
>>>>> should send an ack anyway.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for having looked, and ran the full packetdrill test suite!
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c b/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c
>>>>> index ff9ab3d01ced89570903d3a9f649a637c5e07a90..91357d4713182078debd746a224046cba80ea3ce
>>>>> 100644
>>>>> --- a/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c
>>>>> +++ b/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c
>>>>> @@ -6820,8 +6820,6 @@ tcp_rcv_state_process(struct sock *sk, struct
>>>>> sk_buff *skb)
>>>>> if (sk->sk_shutdown & SEND_SHUTDOWN)
>>>>> tcp_shutdown(sk, SEND_SHUTDOWN);
>>>>>
>>>>> - if (sk->sk_socket)
>>>>> - goto consume;
>>>>> break;
>>>>>
>>>>> case TCP_FIN_WAIT1: {
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I have a failing packetdrill test after Kuniyuki patch :
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> //
>>>>> // Test the simultaneous open scenario that both end sends
>>>>> // SYN/data. Although we don't support that the connection should
>>>>> // still be established.
>>>>> //
>>>>> `../../common/defaults.sh
>>>>> ../../common/set_sysctls.py /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_timestamps=0`
>>>>>
>>>>> // Cache warmup: send a Fast Open cookie request
>>>>> 0 socket(..., SOCK_STREAM, IPPROTO_TCP) = 3
>>>>> +0 fcntl(3, F_SETFL, O_RDWR|O_NONBLOCK) = 0
>>>>> +0 sendto(3, ..., 0, MSG_FASTOPEN, ..., ...) = -1 EINPROGRESS
>>>>> (Operation is now in progress)
>>>>> +0 > S 0:0(0) <mss 1460,nop,nop,sackOK,nop,wscale 8,FO,nop,nop>
>>>>> +.01 < S. 123:123(0) ack 1 win 14600 <mss
>>>>> 1460,nop,nop,sackOK,nop,wscale 6,FO abcd1234,nop,nop>
>>>>> +0 > . 1:1(0) ack 1
>>>>> +.01 close(3) = 0
>>>>> +0 > F. 1:1(0) ack 1
>>>>> +.01 < F. 1:1(0) ack 2 win 92
>>>>> +0 > . 2:2(0) ack 2
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> //
>>>>> // Test: simulatenous fast open
>>>>> //
>>>>> +.01 socket(..., SOCK_STREAM, IPPROTO_TCP) = 4
>>>>> +0 fcntl(4, F_SETFL, O_RDWR|O_NONBLOCK) = 0
>>>>> +0 sendto(4, ..., 1000, MSG_FASTOPEN, ..., ...) = 1000
>>>>> +0 > S 0:1000(1000) <mss 1460,nop,nop,sackOK,nop,wscale 8,FO
>>>>> abcd1234,nop,nop>
>>>>> // Simul. SYN-data crossing: we don't support that yet so ack only remote ISN
>>>>> +.005 < S 1234:1734(500) win 14600 <mss 1040,nop,nop,sackOK,nop,wscale
>>>>> 6,FO 87654321,nop,nop>
>>>>> +0 > S. 0:0(0) ack 1235 <mss 1460,nop,nop,sackOK,nop,wscale 8>
>>>>>
>>>>> // SYN data is never retried.
>>>>> +.045 < S. 1234:1234(0) ack 1001 win 14600 <mss
>>>>> 940,nop,nop,sackOK,nop,wscale 6,FO 12345678,nop,nop>
>>>>> +0 > . 1001:1001(0) ack 1
>>>>
>>>> I recently sent a PR -- already applied -- to Neal to remove this line:
>>>>
>>>> https://github.com/google/packetdrill/pull/86
>>>>
>>>> I thought it was the intension of Kuniyuki's patch not to send this ACK
>>>> in this case to follow the RFC 9293's recommendation. This TFO test
>>>> looks a bit similar to the example from Kuniyuki's patch:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --------------- 8< ---------------
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>> /* No ACK here */
>>>>
>>>> +0 write(3, ..., 100) = 100
>>>> +0 > P. 1:101(100) ack 1
>>>> --------------- 8< ---------------
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But maybe here that should be different for TFO?
>>>>
>>>> For my case with MPTCP (and TFO), it is fine to drop this 'goto consume'
>>>> but I don't know how "strict" we want to be regarding the RFC and this
>>>> marginal case.
>>>
>>> Problem of this 'goto consume' is that we are not properly sending a
>>> DUPACK in this case.
>>>
>>> +.01 socket(..., SOCK_STREAM, IPPROTO_TCP) = 4
>>> +0 fcntl(4, F_SETFL, O_RDWR|O_NONBLOCK) = 0
>>> +0 sendto(4, ..., 1000, MSG_FASTOPEN, ..., ...) = 1000
>>> +0 > S 0:1000(1000) <mss 1460,nop,nop,sackOK,nop,wscale 8,FO
>>> abcd1234,nop,nop>
>>> // Simul. SYN-data crossing: we don't support that yet so ack only remote ISN
>>> +.005 < S 1234:1734(500) win 14600 <mss 1040,nop,nop,sackOK,nop,wscale
>>> 6,FO 87654321,nop,nop>
>>> +0 > S. 0:0(0) ack 1235 <mss 1460,nop,nop,sackOK,nop,wscale 8>
>>>
>>> +.045 < S. 1234:1234(0) ack 1001 win 14600 <mss
>>> 940,nop,nop,sackOK,nop,wscale 6,FO 12345678,nop,nop>
>>> +0 > . 1001:1001(0) ack 1 <nop,nop,sack 0:1> // See here
>>
>> I'm sorry, but is it normal to have 'ack 1' with 'sack 0:1' here?
>
> It is normal, because the SYN was already received/processed.
>
> sack 0:1 represents this SYN sequence.

Thank you for your reply!

Maybe it is just me, but does it not look strange to have the SACK
covering a segment (0:1) that is before the ACK (1)?

'ack 1' and 'sack 0:1' seem to cover the same block, no?
Before Kuniyuki's patch, this 'sack 0:1' was not present.

Cheers,
Matt
--
Sponsored by the NGI0 Core fund.

Next message: Marco Pagani: "[PATCH] drm/test: use kunit action wrapper macro in the gem shmem test suite"
Previous message: Borah, Chaitanya Kumar: "Regression on linux-next (next-20240722)"
In reply to: Eric Dumazet: "Re: [PATCH net v2 1/2] tcp: process the 3rd ACK with sk_socket for TFO/MPTCP"
Next in thread: Kuniyuki Iwashima: "Re: [PATCH net v2 1/2] tcp: process the 3rd ACK with sk_socket for TFO/MPTCP"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]