Netdev List
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@netfilter.org>
To: Kacper Kokot <kacper.kokot.44@gmail.com>
Cc: netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, kadlec@netfilter.org,
	fmancera@suse.de, fw@strlen.de, david.laight.linux@gmail.com,
	Phil Sutter <phil@nwl.cc>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
	Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org>,
	coreteam@netfilter.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] netfilter: TCPMSS: fix dropped packets when MSS option is unaligned
Date: Fri, 29 May 2026 00:52:52 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <ahjHRB0Ohn7fpd-o@chamomile> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260528223412.27311-1-kacper.kokot.44@gmail.com>

Hi,

On Thu, May 28, 2026 at 11:34:11PM +0100, Kacper Kokot wrote:
> Padding TCP options with NOPs is optional, so it is legal to send an
> MSS option that is not aligned to a word boundary and therefore not
> aligned for checksum calculation. The current TCPMSS target is not
> robust to this: when the MSS option is unaligned it produces an
> invalid checksum, and the packet is dropped.

Yes, but how many stacks do this?

> This has not been observed in any real environment.

... then why is this a fix?

> Senders place the MSS at the beginning of the options block, where
> it is naturally aligned, but the spec allows unaligned options and
> the kernel shouldn't silently drop legal packets.

This is questionably a "clean packet".

And "the kernel is not silently dropping anything, it is policy that
would drop it", and there are mechanisms to track what rule is
dropping this packet.

> When the changed word is not aligned, the modified bytes straddle two
> checksum words, and using the standard incremental update helper
> (which assumes alignment) produces an invalid checksum:
> 
>     | w1     | w2     |
> OLD |  a  b  |  c  d  |
> NEW |  a  b' |  c' d  |
> 
> Since b' and c' sit across w1 and w2, we could compute the incremental
> checksum in two operations by recalculating w1 and then w2:
> 
>     C' = C - w1 + w1' - w2 + w2'
> 
> But working it out:
> 
>     C' = C - w1 - w2 + w1' + w2'
>        = C - (a * 2^8 + b)  - (c * 2^8 + d)
>            + (a * 2^8 + b') + (c' * 2^8 + d)
>        = C + 2^8 * (a - a + c' - c) + (b' - b + d - d)
>        = C + 2^8 * (c' - c) + (b' - b)
>        = C - (2^8 * c + b) + (2^8 * c' + b')
> 
> So an unaligned incremental checksum can be done in a single operation
> by byteswapping the changed bytes before passing them to the helper.
> This patch implements that trick for unaligned MSS option updates.

If this is a fix as the title specify, there no Fixes: tag?

To me, this qualifies as an enhancement, if anything.

Maybe more correct subject is:

  "netfilter: TCPMSS: handle packets with unaligned MSS option"

since this mangling unaligned MSS has never been supported this far.

Thanks

> Signed-off-by: Kacper Kokot <kacper.kokot.44@gmail.com>
> ---
> I decided to go with the get_unaligned_be16 suggestion because
> it's idiomatic and it produces shorter assembly on x86-64
> (6 instructions vs 9). SYN processing is a cold path so
> I didn't look into it further.
> 
> v2:
>  - Use get_unaligned_be16 (Fernando's suggestion)
>  - Fix alignment check expression (David)
>  - Mention it's a theoretical bug in the commit message
>  - Drop cc stable, the bug is only theoretical
>
>  net/netfilter/xt_TCPMSS.c | 16 ++++++++++++++--
>  1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/net/netfilter/xt_TCPMSS.c b/net/netfilter/xt_TCPMSS.c
> index 80e1634bc51f..32c87a520361 100644
> --- a/net/netfilter/xt_TCPMSS.c
> +++ b/net/netfilter/xt_TCPMSS.c
> @ -117,8 +117,9 @@ tcpmss_mangle_packet(struct sk_buff *skb,
>  	for (i = sizeof(struct tcphdr); i <= tcp_hdrlen - TCPOLEN_MSS; i += optlen(opt, i)) {
>  		if (opt[i] == TCPOPT_MSS && opt[i+1] == TCPOLEN_MSS) {
>  			u_int16_t oldmss;
> +			u16 csum_oldmss, csum_newmss;
>  
> -			oldmss = (opt[i+2] << 8) | opt[i+3];
> +			oldmss = get_unaligned_be16(&opt[i+2]);
>  
>  			/* Never increase MSS, even when setting it, as
>  			 * doing so results in problems for hosts that rely
> @@ -130,8 +131,19 @@ tcpmss_mangle_packet(struct sk_buff *skb,
>  			opt[i+2] = (newmss & 0xff00) >> 8;
>  			opt[i+3] = newmss & 0x00ff;
>  
> +			csum_oldmss = htons(oldmss);
> +			csum_newmss = htons(newmss);
> +
> +			/* MSS may be unaligned; fix up the incremental checksum
> +			 * to avoid an invalid checksum and a dropped packet.
> +			 */
> +			if (((char *)&opt[i + 2] - (char *)tcph) & 0x1) {
> +				csum_oldmss = swab16(csum_oldmss);
> +				csum_newmss = swab16(csum_newmss);
> +			}
> +
>  			inet_proto_csum_replace2(&tcph->check, skb,
> -						 htons(oldmss), htons(newmss),
> +						 csum_oldmss, csum_newmss,
>  						 false);
>  			return 0;
>  		}
> -- 
> 2.43.0
> 

  reply	other threads:[~2026-05-28 22:53 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-05-25 20:11 [PATCH] netfilter: TCPMSS: fix dropped packets when MSS option is unaligned Kacper Kokot
2026-05-25 21:28 ` Florian Westphal
2026-05-25 21:44   ` Kacper Kokot
2026-05-25 22:08   ` Fernando Fernandez Mancera
2026-05-26  9:31     ` David Laight
2026-05-26 13:50 ` kernel test robot
2026-05-26 15:18   ` David Laight
2026-05-26 16:46 ` kernel test robot
2026-05-26 23:21   ` Kacper Kokot
2026-05-28 16:31 ` kernel test robot
2026-05-28 18:11 ` kernel test robot
2026-05-28 19:40   ` David Laight
2026-05-28 22:34     ` [PATCH v2] " Kacper Kokot
2026-05-28 22:52       ` Pablo Neira Ayuso [this message]
2026-05-29  7:14       ` Fernando Fernandez Mancera
2026-05-29 20:54 ` [PATCH] " kernel test robot

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=ahjHRB0Ohn7fpd-o@chamomile \
    --to=pablo@netfilter.org \
    --cc=coreteam@netfilter.org \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=david.laight.linux@gmail.com \
    --cc=edumazet@google.com \
    --cc=fmancera@suse.de \
    --cc=fw@strlen.de \
    --cc=horms@kernel.org \
    --cc=kacper.kokot.44@gmail.com \
    --cc=kadlec@netfilter.org \
    --cc=kuba@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
    --cc=phil@nwl.cc \
    /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