Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Mon, 14 Dec 2009 18:34:00 +0100 | From | Eric Dumazet <> | Subject | Re: Badness at net/ipv4/inet_connection_sock.c:293 |
| |
Le 14/12/2009 08:45, David Miller a écrit : > From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com> > Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 06:56:31 +0100 > >> It seems to me tcp_create_openreq_child() doesnt properly initialize >> newtp->cookie_values to NULL, but this should not produce warnings like that ? > > If oldtp->cookie_values is NULL, the child's should be as well > because of sk_clone().
Right, maybe then its a tcp_ack() or a syncookie validation change ?
tcp_v4_rcv() bh_lock_sock_nested(sk); if (!sock_owned_by_user(sk)) {
-> tcp_v4_do_rcv() -> tcp_v4_hnd_req() -> cookie_v4_check() -> get_cookie_sock() -> child = syn_recv_sock() -> inet_csk_reqsk_queue_add(child) (TCP_SYN_RECV socket queued into parent) -> tcp_child_process() (backlog... not) -> tcp_rcv_state_process() -> acceptable = tcp_ack() > 0; -> if (acceptable) -> sk_state = TCP_ESTABLISHED (but if tcp_ack() returned <= 0, state unchanged : TCP_SYN_RECV)
And commit 96e0bf4b5193d0d97d139f99e2dd128763d55521 (tcp: Discard segments that ack data not yet sent)
Did change this area a bit :
@@ -5632,7 +5639,7 @@ int tcp_rcv_state_process(struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb, /* step 5: check the ACK field */ if (th->ack) { - int acceptable = tcp_ack(sk, skb, FLAG_SLOWPATH); + int acceptable = tcp_ack(sk, skb, FLAG_SLOWPATH) > 0; switch (sk->sk_state) { case TCP_SYN_RECV:
-- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |