MPTCP Linux Development
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Matthieu Baerts <matttbe@kernel.org>
To: Mat Martineau <martineau@kernel.org>
Cc: MPTCP Linux <mptcp@lists.linux.dev>
Subject: Re: [PATCH mptcp-net v2] mptcp: options: handle MPC data + csum reqd + no csum
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2026 19:33:56 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <29304df9-a7e7-4585-aecb-b3ae701ee5bb@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20f3ef05-aebd-84b0-55a6-8ed35c79d07b@kernel.org>

Hi Mat,

On 14/08/2026 03:48, Mat Martineau wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Aug 2026, Matthieu Baerts (NGI0) wrote:
> 
>> Before this modification, a remote peer could send an MP_CAPABLE with
>> data, with the checksum flag set, but without adding the actual 2 bytes
>> of checksum. As a result, uninitialised bytes could be used for the
>> 'csum' field.
>>
>> That was not a critical issue, because this 'csum' field is only used to
>> compare with the expected one, if previously negotiated in the 3WHS.
>> Worst case, the checksum is likely wrong, a fallback is done without a
>> reject if the negotiation was done earlier. That's OK.
>>
>> Yet, better to take the expected path with this case: only look at the
>> checksum flag for MP_CAPABLEs not carrying a data-len.
>>
>> Such packet can be seen as a 3rd or 4th ACK. The RFC8684 mentions [1]
>> that the 3rd packet should have the checksum flag set. When an MPC + ACK
>> contains data, the checksum flag is redundant with the checksum field.
>> It is not clear what should be done for the 4th ACK, nor if the flag has
>> to be set if the checksum field is set.
>>
>> Therefore, it seems fine to only look at the presence of the checksum
>> field, not to break the interaction with stacks that were not setting
>> both.

(...)

> Yes, this looks like a good tradeoff between not breaking interaction
> with other stacks while avoiding an invalid checksum.

Thank you for the review!

New patches for t/upstream-net and t/upstream:
- aa590201e5a8: mptcp: options: handle MPC data + csum reqd + no csum
- Results: 79d7297194ac..52bf6f574345 (export-net)
- Results: 199ed983c1f7..55a0274d38e1 (export)

Tests are now in progress:

- export-net:
https://github.com/multipath-tcp/mptcp_net-next/commit/f77d0f8990780a8dc74e236f213b46a0d9b72391/checks
- export:
https://github.com/multipath-tcp/mptcp_net-next/commit/84c282b44c231fa96cdec0e7f0fd99be9af9d82f/checks

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


      reply	other threads:[~2026-08-15 17:33 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-08-05 15:07 [PATCH mptcp-net v2] mptcp: options: handle MPC data + csum reqd + no csum Matthieu Baerts (NGI0)
2026-08-05 17:02 ` MPTCP CI
2026-08-14  1:48 ` Mat Martineau
2026-08-15 17:33   ` Matthieu Baerts [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=29304df9-a7e7-4585-aecb-b3ae701ee5bb@kernel.org \
    --to=matttbe@kernel.org \
    --cc=martineau@kernel.org \
    --cc=mptcp@lists.linux.dev \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox