Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <7ccd58e8e26bcdd82e66993cbd53ff59eebe3949.1668139105.git.jamie.bainbridge@gmail.com>
 <20221111092047.7d33bcd3@hermes.local> <CAAvyFNhkn2Zv16RMWGCtQh4SpjJX56q8gyEL3Mz6Ru+Ef=SJfA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20221111161120.770b9db2@hermes.local> <CANn89i+sj9w+W3Mx-UsmaWzq_GcLwr=FQkHC61_2eBbvpVQQ1g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CANn89i+sj9w+W3Mx-UsmaWzq_GcLwr=FQkHC61_2eBbvpVQQ1g@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Jamie Bainbridge <jamie.bainbridge@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 14 Nov 2022 10:37:39 +1000
Message-ID: <CAAvyFNiKzVnL9EujP3VyCWFrvc5ZrpN=cJsTE95fFAMLU2yRLg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] tcp: Add listening address to SYN flood message
To:     Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
Cc:     Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org>,
        David Ahern <dsahern@kernel.org>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 at 10:14, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 4:11 PM Stephen Hemminger
> <stephen@networkplumber.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 10:59:52 +1100
> > Jamie Bainbridge <jamie.bainbridge@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 at 04:20, Stephen Hemminger
> > > <stephen@networkplumber.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, 11 Nov 2022 14:59:32 +1100
> > > > Jamie Bainbridge <jamie.bainbridge@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > +         xchg(&queue->synflood_warned, 1) == 0) {
> > > > > +             if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_IPV6) && sk->sk_family == AF_INET6) {
> > > > > +                     net_info_ratelimited("%s: Possible SYN flooding on port %pI6c.%u. %s.\n",
> > > > > +                                     proto, &sk->sk_v6_rcv_saddr,
> > > > > +                                     sk->sk_num, msg);
> > > > > +             } else {
> > > > > +                     net_info_ratelimited("%s: Possible SYN flooding on port %pI4.%u. %s.\n",
> > > > > +                                     proto, &sk->sk_rcv_saddr,
> > > > > +                                     sk->sk_num, msg);
> > > >
> > > > Minor nit, the standard format for printing addresses would be to use colon seperator before port
> > > >
> > > >                 if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_IPV6) && sk->sk_family == AF_INET6) {
> > > >                         net_info_ratelimited("%s: Possible SYN flooding on [%pI6c]:%u. %s.\n",
> > > >                                         proto, &sk->sk_v6_rcv_saddr, sk->sk_num, msg);
> > > >                 } else {
> > > >                         net_info_ratelimited("%s: Possible SYN flooding on %pI4:%u. %s.\n",
> > > >                                         proto, &sk->sk_rcv_saddr, sk->sk_num, msg);
> > >
> > > I considered this too, though Eric suggested "IP.port" to match tcpdump.
> >
> > That works, if it happens I doubt it matters.
>
> Note that "ss dst" really needs the [] notation for IPv6
>
> ss -t dst "[::1]"
> State                  Recv-Q             Send-Q
>     Local Address:Port                            Peer Address:Port
>          Process
> CLOSE-WAIT             1                  0
>             [::1]:50584                                  [::1]:ipp
>
> So we have inconsistency anyway...
>
> As you said, no strong opinion.

Following an RFC and ss filter paste is a good reason, I'll do a v3.

Jamie