From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from m12-13.163.com (m12-13.163.com [220.181.12.13]) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7E8E2FB2 for ; Sat, 26 Jun 2021 09:15:51 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=163.com; s=s110527; h=Subject:From:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version; bh=YFT1v iJ4tjK9f4wo1lQRP91dE5USVky459zb8l1s0J4=; b=ghkk54iOccDJrmAFowwIX M6/85SFKDPAUCsuMdiKKsfOHESvav9FXTWDiGzAhSh5YSrf2GzIldyvq5ha1Lz0D SPmQVSoG+A4o+XllwN7c90SUDvW+JYsrguZ+ReWuMfcRmJiFAG6KgpuqtHkPX2bk MTVY+KrQA0lavrMJCjxAig= Received: from [10.8.0.74] (unknown [36.111.140.26]) by smtp9 (Coremail) with SMTP id DcCowADnF_F47NZghdv7IA--.39526S2; Sat, 26 Jun 2021 16:59:38 +0800 (CST) Subject: Re: [PATCH mptcp-net v7 4/5] mptcp: avoid processing packet if a subflow reset To: Paolo Abeni , mptcp@lists.linux.dev Cc: mathew.j.martineau@linux.intel.com References: <1624609559-6786-1-git-send-email-wujianguo106@163.com> <1624609559-6786-5-git-send-email-wujianguo106@163.com> <9d8a2d8ae7930e741f5441a36ef19d8039731a02.camel@redhat.com> From: Jianguo Wu Message-ID: <1352450a-c975-0031-b57a-527bbb928fdf@163.com> Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2021 16:59:36 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: mptcp@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <9d8a2d8ae7930e741f5441a36ef19d8039731a02.camel@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-CM-TRANSID:DcCowADnF_F47NZghdv7IA--.39526S2 X-Coremail-Antispam: 1Uf129KBjvJXoW7Ar4DCF13XFy7ZF4xGw43GFg_yoW8Xr4xpF 1kta4UCrs5uFyfuw40yF4kuryF9a1YyrW3Ga15G3W5AFsxGFn3KFy5Kay5trW3AFWIka47 AayvvFn8ur43AFJanT9S1TB71UUUUUUqnTZGkaVYY2UrUUUUjbIjqfuFe4nvWSU5nxnvy2 9KBjDUYxBIdaVFxhVjvjDU0xZFpf9x07jBQ6JUUUUU= X-Originating-IP: [36.111.140.26] X-CM-SenderInfo: 5zxmxt5qjx0iiqw6il2tof0z/1tbiJxq9kF5u+2+jDgAAsZ Hi Paolo, On 2021/6/25 18:45, Paolo Abeni wrote: > Hi, > > I'm sorry for the partial feedback in my previous reply. > > On Fri, 2021-06-25 at 16:25 +0800, wujianguo106@163.com wrote: >> @@ -856,7 +856,8 @@ bool mptcp_synack_options(const struct request_sock *req, unsigned int *size, >> static bool check_fully_established(struct mptcp_sock *msk, struct sock *ssk, >> struct mptcp_subflow_context *subflow, >> struct sk_buff *skb, >> - struct mptcp_options_received *mp_opt) >> + struct mptcp_options_received *mp_opt, >> + bool *subflow_is_rst) > > This additional argument is not needed... > > [...] >> @@ -1053,12 +1057,12 @@ void mptcp_incoming_options(struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb) >> __mptcp_check_push(subflow->conn, sk); >> __mptcp_data_acked(subflow->conn); >> mptcp_data_unlock(subflow->conn); >> - return; >> + return 1; >> } >> >> mptcp_get_options(sk, skb, &mp_opt); >> - if (!check_fully_established(msk, sk, subflow, skb, &mp_opt)) >> - return; >> + if (!check_fully_established(msk, sk, subflow, skb, &mp_opt, &subflow_is_rst)) >> + return subflow_is_rst ? 0 : 1; > > > ... here you can simply: > > return sk->sk_state != TCP_CLOSE; > > plus some comment above alike: > > """the subflow can be in close state only if check_fully_established() > just sent a reset. If so, tell the caller to ignore the current > packet""" > Thank you for all your reviews and suggestions！New version coming soon. > /P >