Re: [PATCH export v3 2/4] mptcp: reject joins after fallback in mptcp_is_fully_established

[gang.yan@linux.dev]

August 14, 2026 at 1:42 AM, "Matthieu Baerts" <matttbe@kernel.org mailto:matttbe@kernel.org?to=%22Matthieu%20Baerts%22%20%3Cmatttbe%40kernel.org%3E > wrote:
> 
> In addition, in the case we are trying to fix here, the MP_FAIL is
> received before switching to fully established: the RFC doesn't explain
> this particular case, but it sounds like there is no need to send the
> infinite mapping, and a fallback can be done directly *I think*. The
> thing is this situation shouldn't happen: we are not supposed to receive
> an MP_FAIL at that stage, no data has been exchanged at the MPTCP level,
> so let's do the minimal -- i.e. just a fallback -- to avoid issues and
> reduce the complexity, no?
> 

Hi Matt, 

Thanks for your explanation. I have a quick thought:

Can we check the 'subflow->send_mp_fail' in 'subflow_finish_connect'? like:

'''
...
 543         if (subflow->request_mptcp) {
 544                 if (!(mp_opt.suboptions & OPTION_MPTCP_MPC_SYNACK)) {
 545                         if (!mptcp_try_fallback(sk,
 546                                                 MPTCP_MIB_MPCAPABLEACTIVEFALLBACK)) {
 547                                 MPTCP_INC_STATS(sock_net(sk),
 548                                                 MPTCP_MIB_FALLBACKFAILED);
 549                                 goto do_reset;
 550                         }
 551 
 552                         goto fallback;
 553                 }
             if (subflow->send_mp_fail)
                             goto fallback;
 554 
...
'''

Or, check msk->fully_established in pm_fail_received like this:
'''
@@ -901,6 +898,12 @@  void mptcp_pm_mp_fail_received(struct sock *sk, u64 fail_seq)
 		subflow->send_mp_fail = 1;
 		subflow->send_infinite_map = 1;
 		tcp_send_ack(sk);
+
+		if (!msk->fully_established && !mptcp_try_fallback(sk, MPTCP_MIB_MPFAILFALLBACK)) {
+			MPTCP_INC_STATS(sock_net(sk), MPTCP_MIB_FALLBACKFAILED);
+			mptcp_subflow_reset(sk);
+		}
''' 

Because the MP_FAIL specified in the RFC does not seem to actively trigger a fallback
on its own; instead, it is triggered via the infinite mapping. If we modify the
behavior of MP_FAIL in the regular path, I think it might be over-design and could
introduce additional risks. What do you think?

Thanks
Gang

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