Bug in tcp timestamp option ? TSecr in SYN-ACK != TSval in SYN

On Tue, 2015-05-26 at 23:23 -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-05-26 at 23:12 -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > On Tue, 2015-05-26 at 22:47 -0700, Gopakumar Choorakkot Edakkunni wrote:
> > > All,
> > > 
> > > The original query I had posted is here :
> > > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/30414350/tcp-syn-ack-tsecr-not-matching-tsval-in-syn
> > > .. The summary is that once in a while, the TSval in SYN is not what
> > > is getting echoed in TSecr, and looks like something on amazon aws
> > > side is very strict about that and drops those packets. Any clues on
> > > this - whether its a known issue/fixed elsewhere etc. would be of
> > > great help.
> > 
> > I guess that if you send SYN packets 3 times as your email did on
> > netdev, that might cause some issues...
> > 
> > More seriously, server has a SYN_RECV socket with same tuple, because of
> > a SYN sent earlier :
> > 
> > 8:36:00.593136 IP XX.YY.ZZ.VV.24548 > AA.BB.CC.DD.443: Flags [S], seq
> > 1204544933, win 29200, options [mss 1320,sackOK,TS val 6032576 ecr
> > 0,nop,wscale 7], length 0
> > 
> > 18:36:00.593171 IP AA.BB.CC.DD.443 > XX.YY.ZZ.VV.24548: Flags [S.], seq
> > 986069863, ack 1204544934, win 14480, options [mss 1460,sackOK,TS val
> > 180940028 ecr 6001497,nop,wscale 5], length 0
> > 
> > 18:36:00.992699 IP AA.BB.CC.DD.443 > XX.YY.ZZ.VV.24548: Flags [S.], seq
> > 986069863, ack 1204544934, win 14480, options [mss 1460,sackOK,TS val
> > 180940128 ecr 6001497,nop,wscale 5], length 0
> > 
> > 
> > From these traces, we can guess a SYN packet was sent about 31 seconds
> > earlier.
> > 
> > SYNACK rtx do not update the TSECR : Initial SYN TSval value (6001497)
> > is mirrored.
> > 
> > Are you establishing many active sessions per minute to this particular
> > target ?
> > 
> 
> Here is a packetdrill test to demonstrate behavior :
> 
> // Test that SYNACK rtx tsecr is not changed (original SYN tsval)
> 
> `../common/defaults.sh
> `
> 
> // Create a socket.
> 0.000 socket(..., SOCK_STREAM, IPPROTO_TCP) = 3
> 0.000 setsockopt(3, SOL_SOCKET, SO_REUSEADDR, [1], 4) = 0
> 
> 0.000 bind(3, ..., ...) = 0
> 0.000 listen(3, 1) = 0
> 
> // Establish a connection.
> 0.100 < S 0:0(0) win 20000 <mss 1000,sackOK,TS val 100 ecr 0>
> +0    > S. 0:0(0) ack 1 <mss 1460,sackOK,TS val 100 ecr 100>
> 
> +0.100 < S 0:0(0) win 20000 <mss 1000,sackOK,TS val 199 ecr 0>
> // check rtx tsecr is sill 100, not 199
> +0     > S. 0:0(0) ack 1 <mss 1460,sackOK,TS val 200 ecr 100>
> 
> +0.100 < . 1:1(0) ack 1 win 20000 <nop,nop,TS val 300 ecr 200>
> +0    accept(3, ..., ...) = 4
> 

Reading again https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7323#section-4.3 

I am not sure we do the right thing here. :(

Yuchung, Neal, what do you think ?

If we receive a SYN matching an existing SYN_RECV, should we update
TS.recent with latest SYN.tsval ? I see nothing wrong with that.

Patch would be :



And updated packetdrill test would be :
// Test that SYNACK rtx tsecr is not changed (original SYN tsval)

`../common/defaults.sh
`

// Create a socket.
0.000 socket(..., SOCK_STREAM, IPPROTO_TCP) = 3
0.000 setsockopt(3, SOL_SOCKET, SO_REUSEADDR, [1], 4) = 0

0.000 bind(3, ..., ...) = 0
0.000 listen(3, 1) = 0

// Establish a connection.
0.100 < S 0:0(0) win 20000 <mss 1000,sackOK,TS val 100 ecr 0>
+0    > S. 0:0(0) ack 1 <mss 1460,sackOK,TS val 100 ecr 100>

+0.100 < S 0:0(0) win 20000 <mss 1000,sackOK,TS val 199 ecr 0>
// check rtx tsecr is 199, not 100
+0     > S. 0:0(0) ack 1 <mss 1460,sackOK,TS val 200 ecr 199>

+0.100 < . 1:1(0) ack 1 win 20000 <nop,nop,TS val 300 ecr 200>
+0    accept(3, ..., ...) = 4


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html