On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 3:07 PM Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Oh well, tcp_syn_options() is supposed to have the same logic.
>
> Maybe we have an issue with SYNCOOKIES (with MD5 + TS + SACK)
>
> Nice can of worms.
Yes, MD5 does not like SYNCOOKIES in some cases.
In this trace, S is a linux host, the
On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 5:19 AM Mathieu Desnoyers
wrote:
> The approach below looks good to me, but you'll also need to annotate
> both tcp_md5_hash_key and tcp_md5_do_add with __no_kcsan or use
> data_race(expr) to let the concurrency sanitizer know that there is
> a known data race which is
- On Jun 30, 2020, at 11:36 PM, Eric Dumazet eduma...@google.com wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 7:59 PM Herbert Xu
> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 07:30:43PM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>> >
>> > I made this clear in the changelog, do we want comments all over the
>> > places ?
>>
On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 08:36:51PM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
> If I knew so many people were excited about TCP / MD5, I would have
> posted all my patches on lkml ;)
>
> Without the smp_wmb() we would still need something to prevent KMSAN
> from detecting that we read uninitialized bytes,
> if
On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 7:59 PM Herbert Xu wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 07:30:43PM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> >
> > I made this clear in the changelog, do we want comments all over the places
> > ?
> > Do not get me wrong, we had this bug for years and suddenly this is a
> > big deal...
On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 07:30:43PM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
> I made this clear in the changelog, do we want comments all over the places ?
> Do not get me wrong, we had this bug for years and suddenly this is a
> big deal...
I thought you were adding a new pair of smp_rmb/smp_wmb. If they
On Tue, 2020-06-30 at 19:30 -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 7:23 PM Herbert Xu
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 07:17:46PM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > > The main issue of the prior code was the double read of key->keylen in
> > > tcp_md5_hash_key(), not that few bytes
On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 7:23 PM Herbert Xu wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 07:17:46PM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> >
> > The main issue of the prior code was the double read of key->keylen in
> > tcp_md5_hash_key(), not that few bytes could change under us.
> >
> > I used smp_rmb() to ease
On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 07:17:46PM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
> The main issue of the prior code was the double read of key->keylen in
> tcp_md5_hash_key(), not that few bytes could change under us.
>
> I used smp_rmb() to ease backports, since old kernels had no
> READ_ONCE()/WRITE_ONCE(), but
On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 7:02 PM Herbert Xu wrote:
>
> Eric Dumazet wrote:
> >
> > diff --git a/net/ipv4/tcp.c b/net/ipv4/tcp.c
> > index
> > 810cc164f795f8e1e8ca747ed5df51bb20fec8a2..ecc0e3fabce8b03bef823cbfc5c1b0a9e24df124
> > 100644
> > --- a/net/ipv4/tcp.c
> > +++ b/net/ipv4/tcp.c
> > @@
Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
> diff --git a/net/ipv4/tcp.c b/net/ipv4/tcp.c
> index
> 810cc164f795f8e1e8ca747ed5df51bb20fec8a2..ecc0e3fabce8b03bef823cbfc5c1b0a9e24df124
> 100644
> --- a/net/ipv4/tcp.c
> +++ b/net/ipv4/tcp.c
> @@ -4034,9 +4034,12 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(tcp_md5_hash_skb_data);
> int
On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 4:44 PM Mathieu Desnoyers
wrote:
>
> - On Jun 30, 2020, at 6:38 PM, Eric Dumazet eduma...@google.com wrote:
> [...]
> >
> > For updates of keys, it seems existing code lacks some RCU care.
> >
> > MD5 keys use RCU for lookups/hashes, but the replacement of a key does
>
- On Jun 30, 2020, at 6:38 PM, Eric Dumazet eduma...@google.com wrote:
[...]
>
> For updates of keys, it seems existing code lacks some RCU care.
>
> MD5 keys use RCU for lookups/hashes, but the replacement of a key does
> not allocate a new piece of memory.
How is that RCU-safe ?
Based on
On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 3:07 PM Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 2:54 PM Eric Dumazet wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 2:23 PM Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 2:17 PM Mathieu Desnoyers
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > - On Jun 30, 2020, at 4:56 PM,
On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 2:54 PM Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 2:23 PM Eric Dumazet wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 2:17 PM Mathieu Desnoyers
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > - On Jun 30, 2020, at 4:56 PM, Eric Dumazet eduma...@google.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, Jun 30,
On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 2:23 PM Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 2:17 PM Mathieu Desnoyers
> wrote:
> >
> > - On Jun 30, 2020, at 4:56 PM, Eric Dumazet eduma...@google.com wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 1:44 PM David Miller wrote:
> > >>
> > >> From: Eric Dumazet
>
On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 2:17 PM Mathieu Desnoyers
wrote:
>
> - On Jun 30, 2020, at 4:56 PM, Eric Dumazet eduma...@google.com wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 1:44 PM David Miller wrote:
> >>
> >> From: Eric Dumazet
> >> Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2020 13:39:27 -0700
> >>
> >> > The (C) & (B)
- On Jun 30, 2020, at 4:56 PM, Eric Dumazet eduma...@google.com wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 1:44 PM David Miller wrote:
>>
>> From: Eric Dumazet
>> Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2020 13:39:27 -0700
>>
>> > The (C) & (B) case are certainly doable.
>> >
>> > A) case is more complex, I have no idea
On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 1:44 PM David Miller wrote:
>
> From: Eric Dumazet
> Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2020 13:39:27 -0700
>
> > The (C) & (B) case are certainly doable.
> >
> > A) case is more complex, I have no idea of breakages of various TCP
> > stacks if a flow got SACK
> > at some point (in 3WHS)
From: Eric Dumazet
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2020 13:39:27 -0700
> The (C) & (B) case are certainly doable.
>
> A) case is more complex, I have no idea of breakages of various TCP
> stacks if a flow got SACK
> at some point (in 3WHS) but suddenly becomes Reno.
I agree that C and B are the easiest to
On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 1:34 PM Mathieu Desnoyers
wrote:
>
> - On Jun 30, 2020, at 3:52 PM, Linus Torvalds
> torva...@linux-foundation.org wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 12:43 PM Linus Torvalds
> > wrote:
> >>
> [...]
> > So I think it's still wrong (clearly others do change passwords
- On Jun 30, 2020, at 4:30 PM, Eric Dumazet eduma...@google.com wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 1:21 PM David Miller wrote:
>>
>> From: Linus Torvalds
>> Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2020 12:43:21 -0700
>>
>> > If you're not willing to do the work to fix it, I will revert that
>> > commit.
>>
>>
- On Jun 30, 2020, at 3:52 PM, Linus Torvalds torva...@linux-foundation.org
wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 12:43 PM Linus Torvalds
> wrote:
>>
[...]
> So I think it's still wrong (clearly others do change passwords
> outside of listening state), but considering that it apparently took
>
On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 1:21 PM David Miller wrote:
>
> From: Linus Torvalds
> Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2020 12:43:21 -0700
>
> > If you're not willing to do the work to fix it, I will revert that
> > commit.
>
> Please let me handle this situation instead of making threats, this
> just got reported.
>
From: Linus Torvalds
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2020 12:43:21 -0700
> If you're not willing to do the work to fix it, I will revert that
> commit.
Please let me handle this situation instead of making threats, this
just got reported.
Thank you.
On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 12:43 PM Linus Torvalds
wrote:
>
> If you're not willing to do the work to fix it, I will revert that
> commit.
Hmm. I only now noticed that that commit is over two years old.
So I think it's still wrong (clearly others do change passwords
outside of listening state),
On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 1:47 PM Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
> If you want to be able to _change_ md5 key, this is fine by me, please
> send a patch.
Eric, if this change breaks existing users, then it gets reverted.
That's just fundamental.
No RFC's are in the lreast relevant when compared to "this
On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 12:43 PM Mathieu Desnoyers
wrote:
>
> - On May 13, 2020, at 3:56 PM, Eric Dumazet eduma...@google.com wrote:
>
> > On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 12:49 PM Eric Dumazet wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 12:38 PM Mathieu Desnoyers
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Hi,
>
- On May 13, 2020, at 3:56 PM, Eric Dumazet eduma...@google.com wrote:
> On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 12:49 PM Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 12:38 PM Mathieu Desnoyers
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > I am reporting a regression with respect to use of
>> >
29 matches
Mail list logo
