Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

net: tcp: RST handling is weak #4420

Closed
pfalcon opened this issue Oct 18, 2017 · 3 comments
Closed

net: tcp: RST handling is weak #4420

pfalcon opened this issue Oct 18, 2017 · 3 comments
Assignees
Labels
area: Networking Enhancement Changes/Updates/Additions to existing features priority: low Low impact/importance bug

Comments

@pfalcon
Copy link
Contributor

pfalcon commented Oct 18, 2017

RFC793 has a repeating closes like:

If the incoming segment has an ACK field, the reset takes its
sequence number from the ACK field of the segment, otherwise the
reset has sequence number zero and the ACK field is set to the sum
of the sequence number and segment length of the incoming segment.

(p.36 of https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc793)

Zephyr's net_tcp_prepare_reset() doesn't take a reference pkt from which it could extract ackno for the above. That means that it won't generate proper RST which would be accepted by a peer, which means that peer can remain confused for extended time about Zephyr's state. For example, if Zephyr and peer was connected, then Zephyr resets, and peer trying to send data on old connection, then Zephyr's RST won't be valid. That's of course if RST is generated by Zephyr at all - I have a feeling that we don't handle all RST cases.

@laperie laperie added the Enhancement Changes/Updates/Additions to existing features label Feb 13, 2018
@laperie laperie added the priority: low Low impact/importance bug label Mar 5, 2018
@jukkar
Copy link
Member

jukkar commented Feb 21, 2019

This is very old one thus closing. Can be re-opened if needed of course.

@jukkar jukkar closed this as completed Feb 21, 2019
@pfalcon
Copy link
Contributor Author

pfalcon commented Feb 21, 2019

Very little improved, this is still pertinent.

@pfalcon pfalcon reopened this Feb 21, 2019
@jukkar jukkar removed their assignment Feb 24, 2019
@pfalcon
Copy link
Contributor Author

pfalcon commented Feb 4, 2021

This issue was filed against TCP1 implementation, while TCP2 has become default and TCP1 removed. Closing.

@pfalcon pfalcon closed this as completed Feb 4, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
area: Networking Enhancement Changes/Updates/Additions to existing features priority: low Low impact/importance bug
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants