On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 4:57 PM Francesco Ruggeri <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> In tcp_create_openreq_child we adjust tcp_header_len for md5 using the
> remote address in newsk. But that address is still 0 in newsk at this
> point, and it is only set later by the callers (tcp_v[46]_syn_recv_sock).
> Use the address from the request socket instead.
>
Nice catch.
This seems like a day-0 bug, right ?
Do you agree on adding
Fixes: cfb6eeb4c860 ("[TCP]: MD5 Signature Option (RFC2385) support.")
Thanks.
> Signed-off-by: Francesco Ruggeri <[email protected]>
> ---
> net/ipv4/tcp_minisocks.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/ipv4/tcp_minisocks.c b/net/ipv4/tcp_minisocks.c
> index 6366df7aaf2a..6854bb1fb32b 100644
> --- a/net/ipv4/tcp_minisocks.c
> +++ b/net/ipv4/tcp_minisocks.c
> @@ -531,7 +531,7 @@ struct sock *tcp_create_openreq_child(const struct sock *sk,
> newtp->tsoffset = treq->ts_off;
> #ifdef CONFIG_TCP_MD5SIG
> newtp->md5sig_info = NULL; /*XXX*/
> - if (newtp->af_specific->md5_lookup(sk, newsk))
> + if (treq->af_specific->req_md5_lookup(sk, req_to_sk(req)))
> newtp->tcp_header_len += TCPOLEN_MD5SIG_ALIGNED;
> #endif
> if (skb->len >= TCP_MSS_DEFAULT + newtp->tcp_header_len)
> --
> 2.28.0
>
>
On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 5:20 PM Eric Dumazet <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 4:57 PM Francesco Ruggeri <[email protected]> wrote:
> This seems like a day-0 bug, right ?
>
> Do you agree on adding
>
> Fixes: cfb6eeb4c860 ("[TCP]: MD5 Signature Option (RFC2385) support.")
>
> Thanks.
>
I also think it is a day-0 bug. Should I resubmit with "Fixes:" ?
On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 5:32 PM Francesco Ruggeri <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 5:20 PM Eric Dumazet <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 4:57 PM Francesco Ruggeri <[email protected]> wrote:
> > This seems like a day-0 bug, right ?
> >
> > Do you agree on adding
> >
> > Fixes: cfb6eeb4c860 ("[TCP]: MD5 Signature Option (RFC2385) support.")
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> I also think it is a day-0 bug. Should I resubmit with "Fixes:" ?
I think so. It will make things a bit easier for network maintainers,
because I do not think patchwork catches Fixes: tags added during code review.
Also please add the net prefix, as in [PATCH v2 net] title (look at
the warning at https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/patch/[email protected]/
)
Thanks.