[lkml]   [2019]   [Dec]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
Subject[PATCH 4.14 09/36] tcp: tighten acceptance of ACKs not matching a child socket
From: Guillaume Nault <>

[ 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

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 <>
Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <>
include/net/tcp.h | 10 +++++++++-
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

--- a/include/net/tcp.h
+++ b/include/net/tcp.h
@@ -512,7 +512,15 @@ static inline bool tcp_synq_no_recent_ov
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)

 \ /
  Last update: 2019-12-19 19:51    [W:0.100 / U:9.096 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site