Re: [PATCH net v2] tcp: avoid creating multiple req socks with the same tuples

[Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>]

On 6/14/19 7:25 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 7:04 AM maowenan <maowenan@huawei.com> wrote:
>> I agree that this is a special case.
>> I propose one point about the sequence of synack, if two synack with two different
>> sequence since the time elapse 64ns, this issue disappear.
>>
>> tcp_conn_request->tcp_v4_init_seq->secure_tcp_seq->seq_scale
>> static u32 seq_scale(u32 seq)
>> {
>>         /*
>>          *      As close as possible to RFC 793, which
>>          *      suggests using a 250 kHz clock.
>>          *      Further reading shows this assumes 2 Mb/s networks.
>>          *      For 10 Mb/s Ethernet, a 1 MHz clock is appropriate.
>>          *      For 10 Gb/s Ethernet, a 1 GHz clock should be ok, but
>>          *      we also need to limit the resolution so that the u32 seq
>>          *      overlaps less than one time per MSL (2 minutes).
>>          *      Choosing a clock of 64 ns period is OK. (period of 274 s)
>>          */
>>         return seq + (ktime_get_real_ns() >> 6);
>> }
>>
>> So if the long delay larger than 64ns, the seq is difference.
> 
> The core issue has nothing to do with syncookies.
> 
> Are you sure you really understand this stack ?
> 

Oh well, maybe I should not have answered before my breakfast/coffee.

What I meant to say is that we do not want to fix this problem by working around
the issue you noticed (which leads to RST packets)