On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 1:12 AM Eric Dumazet <eduma...@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 5:53 PM Jakub Kicinski <k...@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 29 Dec 2020 05:59:20 +0800 Pengcheng Yang wrote:
> > > TCP_SKB_CB(skb)->tcp_tw_isn contains an ISN, chosen by
> > > tcp_timewait_state_process() , when SYN is received in TIMEWAIT state.
> > > But tcp_tw_isn is not used because it is overwritten by
> > > tcp_v4_restore_cb() after commit eeea10b83a13 ("tcp: add
> > > tcp_v4_fill_cb()/tcp_v4_restore_cb()").
> > >
> > > To fix this case, we record tcp_tw_isn before tcp_v4_restore_cb() and
> > > then set it in tcp_v4_fill_cb(). V6 does the same.
> > >
> > > Fixes: eeea10b83a13 ("tcp: add tcp_v4_fill_cb()/tcp_v4_restore_cb()")
> > > Reported-by: chenc <che...@wangsu.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Pengcheng Yang <yan...@wangsu.com>
> >
> > Please fix the date and resend. This patch came in last night,
> > but it has a date of December 28th.
>
> Not this whole madness about tcp_v4_fill_cb()/tcp_v4_restore_cb()
> could be reverted
This makes isn always been 0 in tcp_conn_request(), because tcp_tw_isn
is always initialized to 0 in tcp_v4_fill_cb() and tcp_tw_isn becomes
meaningless.
Do we need to make tcp_tw_isn work again?
> now we have an RB tree for out-of-order packets.
I don't quite understand how setting tcp_tw_isn for SYN would affect
out_of_order_queue?
