Donate to e Foundation | Murena handsets with /e/OS | Own a part of Murena! Learn more

Commit 0e835331 authored by Ilpo Järvinen's avatar Ilpo Järvinen Committed by David S. Miller
Browse files

[TCP]: Update comment of SACK block validator



Just came across what RFC2018 states about generation of valid
SACK blocks in case of reneging. Alter comment a bit to point
out clearly.

IMHO, there isn't any reason to change code because the
validation is there for a purpose (counters will inform user
about decision TCP made if this case ever surfaces).

Signed-off-by: default avatarIlpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@helsinki.fi>
Signed-off-by: default avatarDavid S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
parent 95eacd27
Loading
Loading
Loading
Loading
+9 −2
Original line number Diff line number Diff line
@@ -1027,8 +1027,15 @@ static void tcp_update_reordering(struct sock *sk, const int metric,
 * SACK block range validation checks that the received SACK block fits to
 * the expected sequence limits, i.e., it is between SND.UNA and SND.NXT.
 * Note that SND.UNA is not included to the range though being valid because
 * it means that the receiver is rather inconsistent with itself (reports
 * SACK reneging when it should advance SND.UNA).
 * it means that the receiver is rather inconsistent with itself reporting
 * SACK reneging when it should advance SND.UNA. Such SACK block this is
 * perfectly valid, however, in light of RFC2018 which explicitly states
 * that "SACK block MUST reflect the newest segment.  Even if the newest
 * segment is going to be discarded ...", not that it looks very clever
 * in case of head skb. Due to potentional receiver driven attacks, we
 * choose to avoid immediate execution of a walk in write queue due to
 * reneging and defer head skb's loss recovery to standard loss recovery
 * procedure that will eventually trigger (nothing forbids us doing this).
 *
 * Implements also blockage to start_seq wrap-around. Problem lies in the
 * fact that though start_seq (s) is before end_seq (i.e., not reversed),