From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>
To: Linux Netdev List <netdev@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: "Ilpo Järvinen" <ilpo.jarvinen@helsinki.fi>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: [RFC] tcp: allow timestamps even if SYN packet has tsval=0
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 13:17:54 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <49B7ABF2.5040803@cosmosbay.com> (raw)
Windows XP platforms, with RFC1323 enabled, send a SYN packet with NULL tsval.
12:56:56.989615 IP 192.168.4.20.3554 > 192.168.20.110.ssh: S 2907491202:2907491202(0) win 64512 <mss 1460,nop,wscale 0,nop,nop,timestamp 0 0,nop,nop,sackOK>
linux tcp stack correctly implements RFC1323 and ignores this timestamp option, sending
a SYN+ACK answer without timestamp option.
I was wondering what could happen if I patch linux to accept this RFC violation, in
hope to get timestamps on TCP flows to customers (slow and congestioned links, but long living tcp sessions)
I got :
12:58:01.266978 IP 192.168.4.20.3579 > 192.168.20.110.ssh: S 1532083461:1532083461(0) win 64512 <mss 1460,nop,wscale 0,nop,nop,timestamp 0 0,nop,nop,sackOK>
12:58:01.267015 IP 192.168.20.110.ssh > 192.168.4.20.3579: S 3467339386:3467339386(0) ack 1532083462 win 5792 <mss 1460,nop,nop,timestamp 4294950269 0,nop,wscale 6>
12:58:01.268968 IP 192.168.4.20.3579 > 192.168.20.110.ssh: . ack 1 win 64512 <nop,nop,timestamp 60498 4294950269>
12:58:01.276664 IP 192.168.20.110.ssh > 192.168.4.20.3579: P 1:24(23) ack 1 win 91 <nop,nop,timestamp 4294950279 60498>
12:58:01.288914 IP 192.168.4.20.3579 > 192.168.20.110.ssh: P 1:29(28) ack 24 win 64489 <nop,nop,timestamp 60498 4294950279>
12:58:01.288966 IP 192.168.20.110.ssh > 192.168.4.20.3579: . ack 29 win 91 <nop,nop,timestamp 4294950291 60498>
12:58:01.289266 IP 192.168.4.20.3579 > 192.168.20.110.ssh: P 29:541(512) ack 24 win 64489 <nop,nop,timestamp 60498 4294950279>
12:58:01.289278 IP 192.168.20.110.ssh > 192.168.4.20.3579: . ack 541 win 108 <nop,nop,timestamp 4294950292 60498>
12:58:01.289283 IP 192.168.4.20.3579 > 192.168.20.110.ssh: P 541:645(104) ack 24 win 64489 <nop,nop,timestamp 60498 4294950279>
12:58:01.289290 IP 192.168.20.110.ssh > 192.168.4.20.3579: . ack 645 win 108 <nop,nop,timestamp 4294950292 60498>
12:58:01.290007 IP 192.168.20.110.ssh > 192.168.4.20.3579: P 24:664(640) ack 645 win 108 <nop,nop,timestamp 4294950292 60498>
12:58:01.294770 IP 192.168.4.20.3579 > 192.168.20.110.ssh: P 645:661(16) ack 664 win 63849 <nop,nop,timestamp 60498 4294950292>
12:58:01.297546 IP 192.168.20.110.ssh > 192.168.4.20.3579: P 664:944(280) ack 661 win 108 <nop,nop,timestamp 4294950300 60498>
12:58:01.331144 IP 192.168.4.20.3579 > 192.168.20.110.ssh: P 661:933(272) ack 944 win 63569 <nop,nop,timestamp 60499 4294950300>
12:58:01.350655 IP 192.168.20.110.ssh > 192.168.4.20.3579: P 944:1536(592) ack 933 win 124 <nop,nop,timestamp 4294950353 60499>
12:58:01.384974 IP 192.168.4.20.3579 > 192.168.20.110.ssh: P 933:949(16) ack 1536 win 64512 <nop,nop,timestamp 60499 4294950353>
12:58:01.385002 IP 192.168.4.20.3579 > 192.168.20.110.ssh: P 949:1001(52) ack 1536 win 64512 <nop,nop,timestamp 60499 4294950353>
So apparently WindowsXP sends a NULL tsval in SYN packet, then subsequent packets get a real value (60498) in this case.
This seems to work on other OS as well, so is the following patch considered evil ?
Do we have security concerns or only risking windows client to have slightly wrong rtt estimation
at the begining of the tcp session ?
Thanks a lot
diff --git a/net/ipv4/tcp_ipv4.c b/net/ipv4/tcp_ipv4.c
index cf74c41..4a55854 100644
--- a/net/ipv4/tcp_ipv4.c
+++ b/net/ipv4/tcp_ipv4.c
@@ -1226,15 +1226,6 @@ int tcp_v4_conn_request(struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb)
if (want_cookie && !tmp_opt.saw_tstamp)
tcp_clear_options(&tmp_opt);
- if (tmp_opt.saw_tstamp && !tmp_opt.rcv_tsval) {
- /* Some OSes (unknown ones, but I see them on web server, which
- * contains information interesting only for windows'
- * users) do not send their stamp in SYN. It is easy case.
- * We simply do not advertise TS support.
- */
- tmp_opt.saw_tstamp = 0;
- tmp_opt.tstamp_ok = 0;
- }
tmp_opt.tstamp_ok = tmp_opt.saw_tstamp;
tcp_openreq_init(req, &tmp_opt, skb);
next reply other threads:[~2009-03-11 12:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-03-11 12:17 Eric Dumazet [this message]
2009-03-11 13:47 ` [RFC] tcp: allow timestamps even if SYN packet has tsval=0 David Miller
2009-03-11 15:00 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-03-11 16:24 ` David Miller
2009-03-12 7:26 ` Ilpo Järvinen
2009-03-13 21:25 ` David Miller
2009-03-14 8:22 ` Ilpo Järvinen
2009-03-14 9:31 ` Eric Dumazet
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=49B7ABF2.5040803@cosmosbay.com \
--to=dada1@cosmosbay.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=ilpo.jarvinen@helsinki.fi \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).