From: Guillaume Nault gnault@redhat.com
[ 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 --- include/net/tcp.h | 16 +++++++++++++--- 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
--- a/include/net/tcp.h +++ b/include/net/tcp.h @@ -509,13 +509,23 @@ static inline bool tcp_synq_no_recent_ov reuse = rcu_dereference(sk->sk_reuseport_cb); if (likely(reuse)) { last_overflow = READ_ONCE(reuse->synq_overflow_ts); - return time_after32(now, last_overflow + - TCP_SYNCOOKIE_VALID); + return !time_between32(now, last_overflow - HZ, + last_overflow + + TCP_SYNCOOKIE_VALID); } }
last_overflow = tcp_sk(sk)->rx_opt.ts_recent_stamp; - return time_after32(now, 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(now, last_overflow - HZ, + last_overflow + TCP_SYNCOOKIE_VALID); }
static inline u32 tcp_cookie_time(void)