Re: [PATCH] tcp: harmonize tcp_vx_rcv header length assumptions

[William Allen Simpson <william.allen.simpson@gmail.com>]

William Allen Simpson wrote:
> Eric Dumazet wrote:
>> Seems fine, but :
>>
>> 1) What means the "Transformed ?" you wrote several times ?
>>
> The only reason that I've been able to figure out for having the
> skb->len test in those places is the preceding xfrm4_policy_check()
> or xfrm6_policy_check() must be able to shrink the skb->len?
> 
> When I did the original transform stuff in other code circa 1995, I'd
> envisioned IP length or link layer (PPP) length shrinking (removing
> padding after block ciphers) -- and apparently this implementation
> extended that concept to transport layer, too.
> 
> Personally, I'd prefer that a single test be placed in the appropriate
> spot in the xfrm* functions, instead.  Anybody know where?
> 
I've spent another day staring at the xfrm* functions.  Since nobody
familiar with them has answered my recent questions, it seems I'm on my
own....  So, here are my conclusions:

The current xfrm* code shouldn't change the TCP header.  If anything did,
the current tests wouldn't work anyway.  For example:

tcp_ipv4:
tcp_v4_rcv()
...
1645 no_tcp_socket:
1646         if (!xfrm4_policy_check(NULL, XFRM_POLICY_IN, skb))
1647                 goto discard_it;
1648
1649         if (skb->len < (th->doff << 2) || tcp_checksum_complete(skb)) {

This code depends on the *th pointer remaining unchanged.  A pullup or
skb clone could make the pointer invalid.

Likewise, the checksum occurs after the xfrm* code.  Thus, the xfrm*
cannot alter, decrypt, or tunnel the input data.

Therefore, I'll remove those existing extraneous skb->len tests.  And
I'll add these criteria to the include/net/xfrm.h for future reference.