Hi Eric,
On Tue, Mar 10, 2026 at 09:54:58AM +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 9, 2026 at 9:03???AM Simon Baatz via B4 Relay
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > From: Simon Baatz <[email protected]>
> >
> > The test ensures we correctly apply the maximum advertised window limit
> > when rcv_nxt advances past rcv_mwnd_seq, so that the "usable window"
> > is properly clamped to zero rather than becoming negative.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Simon Baatz <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > .../net/packetdrill/tcp_rcv_neg_window.pkt | 26
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/net/packetdrill/tcp_rcv_neg_window.pkt
> > b/tools/testing/selftests/net/packetdrill/tcp_rcv_neg_window.pkt
> > new file mode 100644
> > index
> > 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..15a9b4938f16d175ac54f3fd192ed2b59b0a4399
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/net/packetdrill/tcp_rcv_neg_window.pkt
> > @@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
> > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> > +
> > +--mss=1000
> > +
> > +`./defaults.sh`
> > +
> > +// Establish a connection.
> > + +0 socket(..., SOCK_STREAM, IPPROTO_TCP) = 3
> > + +0 setsockopt(3, SOL_SOCKET, SO_REUSEADDR, [1], 4) = 0
> > + +0 setsockopt(3, SOL_SOCKET, SO_RCVBUF, [20000], 4) = 0
> > + +0 bind(3, ..., ...) = 0
> > + +0 listen(3, 1) = 0
> > +
> > + +0 < S 0:0(0) win 32792 <mss 1000,nop,wscale 7>
> > + +0 > S. 0:0(0) ack 1 win 18980 <mss 1460,nop,wscale 0>
> > + +.1 < . 1:1(0) ack 1 win 257
> > +
> > + +0 accept(3, ..., ...) = 4
> > +
> > +// A too big packet is accepted if the receive queue is empty
> > + +0 < P. 1:20001(20000) ack 1 win 257
>
> We do not see the answer, it seems this test is not complete ?
Actually we do not want to see an answer. The packet won't trigger
an immediate ACK (it is larger than the advertised window, but does
not cause immediate memory pressure).
When we then send a RST before the delayed ACK would be generated:
> > +// Send a RST immediately so that there is no rcv_wup/rcv_mwnd_seq update
> > yet
> > + +0 < R. 20001:20001(0) ack 1 win 257
We are in a state where rcv_wup, rcv_wnd, and rcv_mwnd_seq have not
been updated yet, but we must still accept the RST
(rcv_nxt == 20001 > rcv_mwnd_seq, tcp_max_receive_window() == 0)
> > +
> > + +.1 %{ assert tcpi_state == TCP_CLOSE, tcpi_state }%
And we verify that we accepted the RST here.
Given how subtle this sequence is, and considering the limited value
of this test, I am also fine with dropping it if it is too fragile or
confusing.
