[PATCH v2 net-next 0/2] tcp: Make simultaneous connect() RFC-compliant.

[PATCH v2 net-next 0/2] tcp: Make simultaneous connect() RFC-compliant.

[Kuniyuki Iwashima]

Patch 1 fixes an issue that BPF TCP option parser is triggered for ACK
instead of SYN+ACK in the case of simultaneous connect().

Patch 2 removes an wrong assumption in tcp_ao/self-connnect tests.

v2:
  * Target net-next and remove Fixes: tag
  * Don't skip bpf_skops_parse_hdr() to centralise sk_state check
  * Remove unnecessary ACK after SYN+ACK
  * Add patch 2

v1: https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20240704035703.95065-1-kuniyu@amazon.com/


Kuniyuki Iwashima (2):
  tcp: Don't drop SYN+ACK for simultaneous connect().
  selftests: tcp: Remove broken SNMP assumptions for TCP AO self-connect
    tests.

 net/ipv4/tcp_input.c                           |  9 +++++++++
 .../selftests/net/tcp_ao/self-connect.c        | 18 ------------------
 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)

-- 
2.30.2

[PATCH v2 net-next 1/2] tcp: Don't drop SYN+ACK for simultaneous connect().

[Kuniyuki Iwashima]

RFC 9293 states that in the case of simultaneous connect(), the connection
gets established when SYN+ACK is received. [0]

      TCP Peer A                                       TCP Peer B

  1.  CLOSED                                           CLOSED
  2.  SYN-SENT     --> <SEQ=100><CTL=SYN>              ...
  3.  SYN-RECEIVED <-- <SEQ=300><CTL=SYN>              <-- SYN-SENT
  4.               ... <SEQ=100><CTL=SYN>              --> SYN-RECEIVED
  5.  SYN-RECEIVED --> <SEQ=100><ACK=301><CTL=SYN,ACK> ...
  6.  ESTABLISHED  <-- <SEQ=300><ACK=101><CTL=SYN,ACK> <-- SYN-RECEIVED
  7.               ... <SEQ=100><ACK=301><CTL=SYN,ACK> --> ESTABLISHED

However, since commit 0c24604b68fc ("tcp: implement RFC 5961 4.2"), such a
SYN+ACK is dropped in tcp_validate_incoming() and responded with Challenge
ACK.

For example, the write() syscall in the following packetdrill script fails
with -EAGAIN, and wrong SNMP stats get incremented.

   0 socket(..., SOCK_STREAM|SOCK_NONBLOCK, IPPROTO_TCP) = 3
  +0 connect(3, ..., ...) = -1 EINPROGRESS (Operation now in progress)

  +0 > S  0:0(0) <mss 1460,sackOK,TS val 1000 ecr 0,nop,wscale 8>
  +0 < S  0:0(0) win 1000 <mss 1000>
  +0 > S. 0:0(0) ack 1 <mss 1460,sackOK,TS val 3308134035 ecr 0,nop,wscale 8>
  +0 < S. 0:0(0) ack 1 win 1000

  +0 write(3, ..., 100) = 100
  +0 > P. 1:101(100) ack 1

  --

  # packetdrill cross-synack.pkt
  cross-synack.pkt:13: runtime error in write call: Expected result 100 but got -1 with errno 11 (Resource temporarily unavailable)
  # nstat
  ...
  TcpExtTCPChallengeACK           1                  0.0
  TcpExtTCPSYNChallenge           1                  0.0

The problem is that bpf_skops_established() is triggered by the Challenge
ACK instead of SYN+ACK.  This causes the bpf prog to miss the chance to
check if the peer supports a TCP option that is expected to be exchanged
in SYN and SYN+ACK.

Let's accept a bare SYN+ACK for non-TFO TCP_SYN_RECV sockets to avoid such
a situation.

Note that tcp_ack_snd_check() in tcp_rcv_state_process() is skipped not to
send an unnecessary ACK, but this could be a bit risky for net.git, so this
targets for net-next.

Link: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9293.html#section-3.5-7 [0]
Signed-off-by: Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@amazon.com>
---
 net/ipv4/tcp_input.c | 9 +++++++++
 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)

diff --git a/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c b/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c
index 47dacb575f74..50984aedbc8b 100644
--- a/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c
+++ b/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c
@@ -5989,6 +5989,11 @@ static bool tcp_validate_incoming(struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb,
 	 * RFC 5961 4.2 : Send a challenge ack
 	 */
 	if (th->syn) {
+		if (sk->sk_state == TCP_SYN_RECV && !tp->syn_fastopen && th->ack &&
+		    TCP_SKB_CB(skb)->seq + 1 == TCP_SKB_CB(skb)->end_seq &&
+		    TCP_SKB_CB(skb)->seq + 1 == tp->rcv_nxt &&
+		    TCP_SKB_CB(skb)->ack_seq == tp->snd_nxt)
+			goto pass;
 syn_challenge:
 		if (syn_inerr)
 			TCP_INC_STATS(sock_net(sk), TCP_MIB_INERRS);
@@ -5998,6 +6003,7 @@ static bool tcp_validate_incoming(struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb,
 		goto discard;
 	}
 
+pass:
 	bpf_skops_parse_hdr(sk, skb);
 
 	return true;
@@ -6804,6 +6810,9 @@ tcp_rcv_state_process(struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb)
 		tcp_fast_path_on(tp);
 		if (sk->sk_shutdown & SEND_SHUTDOWN)
 			tcp_shutdown(sk, SEND_SHUTDOWN);
+
+		if (!req)
+			goto consume;
 		break;
 
 	case TCP_FIN_WAIT1: {
-- 
2.30.2

[PATCH v2 net-next 2/2] selftests: tcp: Remove broken SNMP assumptions for TCP AO self-connect tests.

[Kuniyuki Iwashima]

tcp_ao/self-connect.c checked the following SNMP stats before/after
connect() to confirm that the test exercises the simultaneous connect()
path.

  * TCPChallengeACK
  * TCPSYNChallenge

But the stats should not be counted for self-connect in the first place,
and the assumption is no longer true.

Let's remove the check.

Signed-off-by: Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@amazon.com>
---
 .../selftests/net/tcp_ao/self-connect.c        | 18 ------------------
 1 file changed, 18 deletions(-)

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/net/tcp_ao/self-connect.c b/tools/testing/selftests/net/tcp_ao/self-connect.c
index e154d9e198a9..a5698b0a3718 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/net/tcp_ao/self-connect.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/net/tcp_ao/self-connect.c
@@ -30,8 +30,6 @@ static void setup_lo_intf(const char *lo_intf)
 static void tcp_self_connect(const char *tst, unsigned int port,
 			     bool different_keyids, bool check_restore)
 {
-	uint64_t before_challenge_ack, after_challenge_ack;
-	uint64_t before_syn_challenge, after_syn_challenge;
 	struct tcp_ao_counters before_ao, after_ao;
 	uint64_t before_aogood, after_aogood;
 	struct netstat *ns_before, *ns_after;
@@ -62,8 +60,6 @@ static void tcp_self_connect(const char *tst, unsigned int port,
 
 	ns_before = netstat_read();
 	before_aogood = netstat_get(ns_before, "TCPAOGood", NULL);
-	before_challenge_ack = netstat_get(ns_before, "TCPChallengeACK", NULL);
-	before_syn_challenge = netstat_get(ns_before, "TCPSYNChallenge", NULL);
 	if (test_get_tcp_ao_counters(sk, &before_ao))
 		test_error("test_get_tcp_ao_counters()");
 
@@ -82,8 +78,6 @@ static void tcp_self_connect(const char *tst, unsigned int port,
 
 	ns_after = netstat_read();
 	after_aogood = netstat_get(ns_after, "TCPAOGood", NULL);
-	after_challenge_ack = netstat_get(ns_after, "TCPChallengeACK", NULL);
-	after_syn_challenge = netstat_get(ns_after, "TCPSYNChallenge", NULL);
 	if (test_get_tcp_ao_counters(sk, &after_ao))
 		test_error("test_get_tcp_ao_counters()");
 	if (!check_restore) {
@@ -98,18 +92,6 @@ static void tcp_self_connect(const char *tst, unsigned int port,
 		close(sk);
 		return;
 	}
-	if (after_challenge_ack <= before_challenge_ack ||
-	    after_syn_challenge <= before_syn_challenge) {
-		/*
-		 * It's also meant to test simultaneous open, so check
-		 * these counters as well.
-		 */
-		test_fail("%s: Didn't challenge SYN or ACK: %zu <= %zu OR %zu <= %zu",
-			  tst, after_challenge_ack, before_challenge_ack,
-			  after_syn_challenge, before_syn_challenge);
-		close(sk);
-		return;
-	}
 
 	if (test_tcp_ao_counters_cmp(tst, &before_ao, &after_ao, TEST_CNT_GOOD)) {
 		close(sk);
-- 
2.30.2

Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 1/2] tcp: Don't drop SYN+ACK for simultaneous connect().

[Eric Dumazet]

On Mon, Jul 8, 2024 at 11:09 AM Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@amazon.com> wrote:
>
> RFC 9293 states that in the case of simultaneous connect(), the connection
> gets established when SYN+ACK is received. [0]
>
>       TCP Peer A                                       TCP Peer B
>
>   1.  CLOSED                                           CLOSED
>   2.  SYN-SENT     --> <SEQ=100><CTL=SYN>              ...
>   3.  SYN-RECEIVED <-- <SEQ=300><CTL=SYN>              <-- SYN-SENT
>   4.               ... <SEQ=100><CTL=SYN>              --> SYN-RECEIVED
>   5.  SYN-RECEIVED --> <SEQ=100><ACK=301><CTL=SYN,ACK> ...
>   6.  ESTABLISHED  <-- <SEQ=300><ACK=101><CTL=SYN,ACK> <-- SYN-RECEIVED
>   7.               ... <SEQ=100><ACK=301><CTL=SYN,ACK> --> ESTABLISHED
>
> However, since commit 0c24604b68fc ("tcp: implement RFC 5961 4.2"), such a
> SYN+ACK is dropped in tcp_validate_incoming() and responded with Challenge
> ACK.
>
> For example, the write() syscall in the following packetdrill script fails
> with -EAGAIN, and wrong SNMP stats get incremented.
>
>    0 socket(..., SOCK_STREAM|SOCK_NONBLOCK, IPPROTO_TCP) = 3
>   +0 connect(3, ..., ...) = -1 EINPROGRESS (Operation now in progress)
>
>   +0 > S  0:0(0) <mss 1460,sackOK,TS val 1000 ecr 0,nop,wscale 8>
>   +0 < S  0:0(0) win 1000 <mss 1000>
>   +0 > S. 0:0(0) ack 1 <mss 1460,sackOK,TS val 3308134035 ecr 0,nop,wscale 8>
>   +0 < S. 0:0(0) ack 1 win 1000
>
>   +0 write(3, ..., 100) = 100
>   +0 > P. 1:101(100) ack 1
>
>   --
>
>   # packetdrill cross-synack.pkt
>   cross-synack.pkt:13: runtime error in write call: Expected result 100 but got -1 with errno 11 (Resource temporarily unavailable)
>   # nstat
>   ...
>   TcpExtTCPChallengeACK           1                  0.0
>   TcpExtTCPSYNChallenge           1                  0.0
>
> The problem is that bpf_skops_established() is triggered by the Challenge
> ACK instead of SYN+ACK.  This causes the bpf prog to miss the chance to
> check if the peer supports a TCP option that is expected to be exchanged
> in SYN and SYN+ACK.
>
> Let's accept a bare SYN+ACK for non-TFO TCP_SYN_RECV sockets to avoid such
> a situation.
>
> Note that tcp_ack_snd_check() in tcp_rcv_state_process() is skipped not to
> send an unnecessary ACK, but this could be a bit risky for net.git, so this
> targets for net-next.
>
> Link: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9293.html#section-3.5-7 [0]
> Signed-off-by: Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@amazon.com>

Reviewed-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>

Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 2/2] selftests: tcp: Remove broken SNMP assumptions for TCP AO self-connect tests.

[Eric Dumazet]

On Mon, Jul 8, 2024 at 11:10 AM Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@amazon.com> wrote:
>
> tcp_ao/self-connect.c checked the following SNMP stats before/after
> connect() to confirm that the test exercises the simultaneous connect()
> path.
>
>   * TCPChallengeACK
>   * TCPSYNChallenge
>
> But the stats should not be counted for self-connect in the first place,
> and the assumption is no longer true.
>
> Let's remove the check.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@amazon.com>

Reviewed-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>

Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 2/2] selftests: tcp: Remove broken SNMP assumptions for TCP AO self-connect tests.

[Dmitry Safonov]

On Mon, Jul 8, 2024 at 7:10 PM Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@amazon.com> wrote:
>
> tcp_ao/self-connect.c checked the following SNMP stats before/after
> connect() to confirm that the test exercises the simultaneous connect()
> path.
>
>   * TCPChallengeACK
>   * TCPSYNChallenge
>
> But the stats should not be counted for self-connect in the first place,
> and the assumption is no longer true.
>
> Let's remove the check.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@amazon.com>

Thanks!
Reviewed-by: Dmitry Safonov <dima@arista.com>

Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 0/2] tcp: Make simultaneous connect() RFC-compliant.

[Jakub Kicinski]

On Mon, 8 Jul 2024 11:08:50 -0700 Kuniyuki Iwashima wrote:
>   * Add patch 2

Hi Kuniyuki!

Looks like it also makes BPF CI fail. All of these:
https://netdev.bots.linux.dev/contest.html?branch=net-next-2024-07-09--15-00&executor=gh-bpf-ci&pw-n=0
But it builds down to the reuseport test on various platforms.
-- 
pw-bot: cr

Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 0/2] tcp: Make simultaneous connect() RFC-compliant.

[Kuniyuki Iwashima]

From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2024 12:52:09 -0700
> On Mon, 8 Jul 2024 11:08:50 -0700 Kuniyuki Iwashima wrote:
> >   * Add patch 2
> 
> Hi Kuniyuki!
> 
> Looks like it also makes BPF CI fail. All of these:
> https://netdev.bots.linux.dev/contest.html?branch=net-next-2024-07-09--15-00&executor=gh-bpf-ci&pw-n=0
> But it builds down to the reuseport test on various platforms.

Oh, thanks for catching!

It seems the test is using TFO, and somehow fastopen_rsk is cleared,
but a packet is processed later in SYN_RECV state...

Will look into it.

Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 0/2] tcp: Make simultaneous connect() RFC-compliant.

[Kuniyuki Iwashima]

From: Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@amazon.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2024 18:44:55 -0700
> From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
> Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2024 12:52:09 -0700
> > On Mon, 8 Jul 2024 11:08:50 -0700 Kuniyuki Iwashima wrote:
> > >   * Add patch 2
> > 
> > Hi Kuniyuki!
> > 
> > Looks like it also makes BPF CI fail. All of these:
> > https://netdev.bots.linux.dev/contest.html?branch=net-next-2024-07-09--15-00&executor=gh-bpf-ci&pw-n=0
> > But it builds down to the reuseport test on various platforms.
> 
> Oh, thanks for catching!
> 
> It seems the test is using TFO, and somehow fastopen_rsk is cleared,
> but a packet is processed later in SYN_RECV state...

The test used MSG_FASTOPEN but TFO always failed due to lack of
proper configuration, this should be fixed.

IP 127.0.0.1.36477 > 127.0.0.1.53357: Flags [S], seq 2263448885:2263448893, win 65495, options [mss 65495,sackOK,TS val 2871616407 ecr 0,nop,wscale 7], length 8
IP 127.0.0.1.53357 > 127.0.0.1.36477: Flags [S.], seq 3767023264, ack 2263448886, win 65483, options [mss 65495,sackOK,TS val 2871616407 ecr 2871616407,nop,wscale 7], length 0

But this wasn't related, just red-herring.

I just missed that the ACK of 3WHS was also processed by newly created
SYN_RECV sk in tcp_rcv_state_process() called from tcp_child_process().

So, (sk->sk_state == TCP_SYN_RECV && !tp->fastopen_rsk) cannot deduce
the cross SYN+ACK case.

We need to use (sk->sk_state == TCP_SYN_RECV && sk->sk_socket).

Will post v3.

Thanks!