tcp: Avoid TCP syncookie rejected by SO_REUSEPORT socket

Although the actual cookie check "__cookie_v[46]_check()" does
not involve sk specific info, it checks whether the sk has recent
synq overflow event in "tcp_synq_no_recent_overflow()".  The
tcp_sk(sk)->rx_opt.ts_recent_stamp is updated every second
when it has sent out a syncookie (through "tcp_synq_overflow()").

The above per sk "recent synq overflow event timestamp" works well
for non SO_REUSEPORT use case.  However, it may cause random
connection request reject/discard when SO_REUSEPORT is used with
syncookie because it fails the "tcp_synq_no_recent_overflow()"
test.

When SO_REUSEPORT is used, it usually has multiple listening
socks serving TCP connection requests destinated to the same local IP:PORT.
There are cases that the TCP-ACK-COOKIE may not be received
by the same sk that sent out the syncookie.  For example,
if reuse->socks[] began with {sk0, sk1},
1) sk1 sent out syncookies and tcp_sk(sk1)->rx_opt.ts_recent_stamp
   was updated.
2) the reuse->socks[] became {sk1, sk2} later.  e.g. sk0 was first closed
   and then sk2 was added.  Here, sk2 does not have ts_recent_stamp set.
   There are other ordering that will trigger the similar situation
   below but the idea is the same.
3) When the TCP-ACK-COOKIE comes back, sk2 was selected.
   "tcp_synq_no_recent_overflow(sk2)" returns true. In this case,
   all syncookies sent by sk1 will be handled (and rejected)
   by sk2 while sk1 is still alive.

The userspace may create and remove listening SO_REUSEPORT sockets
as it sees fit.  E.g. Adding new thread (and SO_REUSEPORT sock) to handle
incoming requests, old process stopping and new process starting...etc.
With or without SO_ATTACH_REUSEPORT_[CB]BPF,
the sockets leaving and joining a reuseport group makes picking
the same sk to check the syncookie very difficult (if not impossible).

The later patches will allow bpf prog more flexibility in deciding
where a sk should be located in a bpf map and selecting a particular
SO_REUSEPORT sock as it sees fit.  e.g. Without closing any sock,
replace the whole bpf reuseport_array in one map_update() by using
map-in-map.  Getting the syncookie check working smoothly across
socks in the same "reuse->socks[]" is important.

A partial solution is to set the newly added sk's ts_recent_stamp
to the max ts_recent_stamp of a reuseport group but that will require
to iterate through reuse->socks[]  OR
pessimistically set it to "now - TCP_SYNCOOKIE_VALID" when a sk is
joining a reuseport group.  However, neither of them will solve the
existing sk getting moved around the reuse->socks[] and that
sk may not have ts_recent_stamp updated, unlikely under continuous
synflood but not impossible.

This patch opts to treat the reuseport group as a whole when
considering the last synq overflow timestamp since
they are serving the same IP:PORT from the userspace
(and BPF program) perspective.

"synq_overflow_ts" is added to "struct sock_reuseport".
The tcp_synq_overflow() and tcp_synq_no_recent_overflow()
will update/check reuse->synq_overflow_ts if the sk is
in a reuseport group.  Similar to the reuseport decision in
__inet_lookup_listener(), both sk->sk_reuseport and
sk->sk_reuseport_cb are tested for SO_REUSEPORT usage.
Update on "synq_overflow_ts" happens at roughly once
every second.

A synflood test was done with a 16 rx-queues and 16 reuseport sockets.
No meaningful performance change is observed.  Before and
after the change is ~9Mpps in IPv4.

Cc: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com>
Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>

1 files changed, 28 insertions, 2 deletions

diff --git a/include/net/tcp.h b/include/net/tcp.h
index d769dc20359b..d196901c9dba 100644
--- a/include/net/tcp.h
+++ b/include/net/tcp.h
@@ -36,6 +36,7 @@
 #include <net/inet_hashtables.h>
 #include <net/checksum.h>
 #include <net/request_sock.h>
+#include <net/sock_reuseport.h>
 #include <net/sock.h>
 #include <net/snmp.h>
 #include <net/ip.h>
@@ -473,9 +474,22 @@ struct sock *cookie_v4_check(struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb);
  */
 static inline void tcp_synq_overflow(const struct sock *sk)
 {
-	unsigned int last_overflow = tcp_sk(sk)->rx_opt.ts_recent_stamp;
+	unsigned int last_overflow;
 	unsigned int now = jiffies;
 
+	if (sk->sk_reuseport) {
+		struct sock_reuseport *reuse;
+
+		reuse = rcu_dereference(sk->sk_reuseport_cb);
+		if (likely(reuse)) {
+			last_overflow = READ_ONCE(reuse->synq_overflow_ts);
+			if (time_after32(now, last_overflow + HZ))
+				WRITE_ONCE(reuse->synq_overflow_ts, now);
+			return;
+		}
+	}
+
+	last_overflow = tcp_sk(sk)->rx_opt.ts_recent_stamp;
 	if (time_after32(now, last_overflow + HZ))
 		tcp_sk(sk)->rx_opt.ts_recent_stamp = now;
 }
@@ -483,9 +497,21 @@ static inline void tcp_synq_overflow(const struct sock *sk)
 /* syncookies: no recent synqueue overflow on this listening socket? */
 static inline bool tcp_synq_no_recent_overflow(const struct sock *sk)
 {
-	unsigned int last_overflow = tcp_sk(sk)->rx_opt.ts_recent_stamp;
+	unsigned int last_overflow;
 	unsigned int now = jiffies;
 
+	if (sk->sk_reuseport) {
+		struct sock_reuseport *reuse;
+
+		reuse = rcu_dereference(sk->sk_reuseport_cb);
+		if (likely(reuse)) {
+			last_overflow = READ_ONCE(reuse->synq_overflow_ts);
+			return time_after32(now, last_overflow +
+					    TCP_SYNCOOKIE_VALID);
+		}
+	}
+
+	last_overflow = tcp_sk(sk)->rx_opt.ts_recent_stamp;
 	return time_after32(now, last_overflow + TCP_SYNCOOKIE_VALID);
 }