* Re: Non-standard TCP stack processing of packets with unacceptable ACK numbers
2017-04-08 20:29 Non-standard TCP stack processing of packets with unacceptable ACK numbers Paul Fiterau Brostean
@ 2017-04-10 15:34 ` Eric Dumazet
2017-05-23 22:24 ` [PATCH net-next] tcp: better validation of received ack sequences Eric Dumazet
1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Eric Dumazet @ 2017-04-10 15:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Paul Fiterau Brostean; +Cc: netdev, Frits Vaandrager
On Sat, 2017-04-08 at 22:29 +0200, Paul Fiterau Brostean wrote:
> Hello,
>
> My name is Paul Fiterau, I am a PhD student at Radboud University whose
> focus for the past few years has been among others to develop and apply
> inference techniques on TCP stacks in order to obtain nice models, and
> to verify them if possible using formal methods. We contacted you on
> something similar 2 years back.
>
> The older (3.19 kernel release) Linux TCP stack we analyze exhibits
> behavior that seems odd to me. The scenario is as follows (all packets
> have empty payloads, no window scaling, rcv/snd window size should not
> be a factor):
>
> TEST HARNESS (CLIENT) LINUX SERVER
>
> 1. - LISTEN (server listen, then accepts)
>
> 2. - --> <SEQ=100><CTL=SYN> --> SYN-RECEIVED
>
> 3. - <-- <SEQ=300><ACK=101><CTL=SYN,ACK> <-- SYN-RECEIVED
>
> 4. - --> <SEQ=101><ACK=301><CTL=ACK> --> ESTABLISHED
>
> 5. - <-- <SEQ=301><ACK=101><CTL=FIN,ACK> <-- FIN WAIT-1 (server opts to close the data connection calling "close" on the connection socket)
>
> 6. - --> <SEQ=101><ACK=99999><CTL=FIN,ACK> --> CLOSING (client sends FIN,ACK with not yet sent acknowledgement number)
>
> 7. - <-- <SEQ=302><ACK=102><CTL=ACK> <-- CLOSING (ACK is 102 instead of 101, why?)
>
> ... (silence from CLIENT)
>
> 8. - <-- <SEQ=301><ACK=102><CTL=FIN,ACK> <-- CLOSING (retransmission, again ACK is 102)
>
>
> Now, note that packet 6 while having the expected sequence number,
> acknowledges something that wasn't sent by the server. So I would expect
> the packet to maybe prompt an ACK response from the server, and then be
> ignored. Yet it is not ignored and actually leads to an increase of the
> acknowledgement number in the server's retransmission of the FIN,ACK
> packet. The explanation I found is that the FIN in packet 6 was
> processed, despite the acknowledgement number being unacceptable.
> Further experiments indeed show that the server processes this FIN,
> transitioning to CLOSING, then on receiving an ACK for the FIN it had
> send in packet 5, the server (or better said connection) transitions
> from CLOSING to TIME_WAIT (as signaled by netstat).
>
>
> I attached a capture showing the scenario, as well as an equivalent
> capture for a Windows 10 TCP server, which behaves exactly as I would
> expect by not increasing the expected sequence number after packet 6,
> and thus not processing the FIN flag received.
>
> I hope someone more knowledgeable can clear this up for me. Is it ok for
> the server to process the FIN bit in a packet with an unacceptable
> acknowledgement number? Could this be an inconsistency in the tested stack?
Hi Paul.
Thanks for your report, we will take a look at this today.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [PATCH net-next] tcp: better validation of received ack sequences
2017-04-08 20:29 Non-standard TCP stack processing of packets with unacceptable ACK numbers Paul Fiterau Brostean
2017-04-10 15:34 ` Eric Dumazet
@ 2017-05-23 22:24 ` Eric Dumazet
2017-05-25 16:48 ` David Miller
1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Eric Dumazet @ 2017-05-23 22:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Paul Fiterau Brostean, David Miller
Cc: netdev, Frits Vaandrager, Neal Cardwell, Yuchung Cheng,
Soheil Hassas Yeganeh
From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
Paul Fiterau Brostean reported :
<quote>
Linux TCP stack we analyze exhibits behavior that seems odd to me.
The scenario is as follows (all packets have empty payloads, no window
scaling, rcv/snd window size should not be a factor):
TEST HARNESS (CLIENT) LINUX SERVER
1. - LISTEN (server listen,
then accepts)
2. - --> <SEQ=100><CTL=SYN> --> SYN-RECEIVED
3. - <-- <SEQ=300><ACK=101><CTL=SYN,ACK> <-- SYN-RECEIVED
4. - --> <SEQ=101><ACK=301><CTL=ACK> --> ESTABLISHED
5. - <-- <SEQ=301><ACK=101><CTL=FIN,ACK> <-- FIN WAIT-1 (server
opts to close the data connection calling "close" on the connection
socket)
6. - --> <SEQ=101><ACK=99999><CTL=FIN,ACK> --> CLOSING (client sends
FIN,ACK with not yet sent acknowledgement number)
7. - <-- <SEQ=302><ACK=102><CTL=ACK> <-- CLOSING (ACK is 102
instead of 101, why?)
... (silence from CLIENT)
8. - <-- <SEQ=301><ACK=102><CTL=FIN,ACK> <-- CLOSING
(retransmission, again ACK is 102)
Now, note that packet 6 while having the expected sequence number,
acknowledges something that wasn't sent by the server. So I would
expect
the packet to maybe prompt an ACK response from the server, and then be
ignored. Yet it is not ignored and actually leads to an increase of the
acknowledgement number in the server's retransmission of the FIN,ACK
packet. The explanation I found is that the FIN in packet 6 was
processed, despite the acknowledgement number being unacceptable.
Further experiments indeed show that the server processes this FIN,
transitioning to CLOSING, then on receiving an ACK for the FIN it had
send in packet 5, the server (or better said connection) transitions
from CLOSING to TIME_WAIT (as signaled by netstat).
</quote>
Indeed, tcp_rcv_state_process() calls tcp_ack() but
does not exploit the @acceptable status but for TCP_SYN_RECV
state.
What we want here is to send a challenge ACK, if not in TCP_SYN_RECV
state. TCP_FIN_WAIT1 state is not the only state we should fix.
Add a FLAG_NO_CHALLENGE_ACK so that tcp_rcv_state_process()
can choose to send a challenge ACK and discard the packet instead
of wrongly change socket state.
With help from Neal Cardwell.
Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
Reported-by: Paul Fiterau Brostean <p.fiterau-brostean@science.ru.nl>
Cc: Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@google.com>
Cc: Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@google.com>
Cc: Soheil Hassas Yeganeh <soheil@google.com>
---
Note for Googlers : Google-Bug-Id: 37204158
net/ipv4/tcp_input.c | 24 +++++++++++-------------
1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c b/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c
index 2fa55f57ac06584bfd9b555799ceb3bbfb7e1b4e..c3bdcbcf544793ba410c618130586bf7d3963da6 100644
--- a/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c
+++ b/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c
@@ -112,6 +112,7 @@ int sysctl_tcp_invalid_ratelimit __read_mostly = HZ/2;
#define FLAG_DSACKING_ACK 0x800 /* SACK blocks contained D-SACK info */
#define FLAG_SACK_RENEGING 0x2000 /* snd_una advanced to a sacked seq */
#define FLAG_UPDATE_TS_RECENT 0x4000 /* tcp_replace_ts_recent() */
+#define FLAG_NO_CHALLENGE_ACK 0x8000 /* do not call tcp_send_challenge_ack() */
#define FLAG_ACKED (FLAG_DATA_ACKED|FLAG_SYN_ACKED)
#define FLAG_NOT_DUP (FLAG_DATA|FLAG_WIN_UPDATE|FLAG_ACKED)
@@ -3568,7 +3569,8 @@ static int tcp_ack(struct sock *sk, const struct sk_buff *skb, int flag)
if (before(ack, prior_snd_una)) {
/* RFC 5961 5.2 [Blind Data Injection Attack].[Mitigation] */
if (before(ack, prior_snd_una - tp->max_window)) {
- tcp_send_challenge_ack(sk, skb);
+ if (!(flag & FLAG_NO_CHALLENGE_ACK))
+ tcp_send_challenge_ack(sk, skb);
return -1;
}
goto old_ack;
@@ -5951,13 +5953,17 @@ int tcp_rcv_state_process(struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb)
/* step 5: check the ACK field */
acceptable = tcp_ack(sk, skb, FLAG_SLOWPATH |
- FLAG_UPDATE_TS_RECENT) > 0;
+ FLAG_UPDATE_TS_RECENT |
+ FLAG_NO_CHALLENGE_ACK) > 0;
+ if (!acceptable) {
+ if (sk->sk_state == TCP_SYN_RECV)
+ return 1; /* send one RST */
+ tcp_send_challenge_ack(sk, skb);
+ goto discard;
+ }
switch (sk->sk_state) {
case TCP_SYN_RECV:
- if (!acceptable)
- return 1;
-
if (!tp->srtt_us)
tcp_synack_rtt_meas(sk, req);
@@ -6026,14 +6032,6 @@ int tcp_rcv_state_process(struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb)
* our SYNACK so stop the SYNACK timer.
*/
if (req) {
- /* Return RST if ack_seq is invalid.
- * Note that RFC793 only says to generate a
- * DUPACK for it but for TCP Fast Open it seems
- * better to treat this case like TCP_SYN_RECV
- * above.
- */
- if (!acceptable)
- return 1;
/* We no longer need the request sock. */
reqsk_fastopen_remove(sk, req, false);
tcp_rearm_rto(sk);
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread