From: Menglong Dong <imagedong@tencent.com>

In tcp_retransmit_timer(), a window shrunk connection will be regarded
as timeout if 'tcp_jiffies32 - tp->rcv_tstamp > TCP_RTO_MAX'. This is not
right all the time.

The retransmits will become zero-window probes in tcp_retransmit_timer()
if the 'snd_wnd==0'. Therefore, the icsk->icsk_rto will come up to
TCP_RTO_MAX sooner or later.

However, the timer can be delayed and be triggered after 122877ms, not
TCP_RTO_MAX, as I tested.

Therefore, 'tcp_jiffies32 - tp->rcv_tstamp > TCP_RTO_MAX' is always true
once the RTO come up to TCP_RTO_MAX, and the socket will die.

Fix this by replacing the 'tcp_jiffies32' with '(u32)icsk->icsk_timeout',
which is exact the timestamp of the timeout.

However, "tp->rcv_tstamp" can restart from idle, then tp->rcv_tstamp
could already be a long time (minutes or hours) in the past even on the
first RTO. So we double check the timeout with the duration of the
retransmission.

Meanwhile, making "2 * TCP_RTO_MAX" as the timeout to avoid the socket
dying too soon.

Fixes: 1da177e4c3f4 ("Linux-2.6.12-rc2")
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/CADxym3YyMiO+zMD4zj03YPM3FBi-1LHi6gSD2XT8pyAMM096pg@mail.gmail.com/
Signed-off-by: Menglong Dong <imagedong@tencent.com>
---
v4:
- make the timeout "2 * TCP_RTO_MAX"
- tp->retrans_stamp is not based on jiffies and can't be compared with
  icsk->icsk_timeout. Fix it.
v3:
- use after() instead of max() in tcp_rtx_probe0_timed_out()
v2:
- consider the case of the connection restart from idle, as Neal comment
---
 net/ipv4/tcp_timer.c | 18 +++++++++++++++++-
 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/net/ipv4/tcp_timer.c b/net/ipv4/tcp_timer.c
index d45c96c7f5a4..f2a52c11e044 100644
--- a/net/ipv4/tcp_timer.c
+++ b/net/ipv4/tcp_timer.c
@@ -454,6 +454,22 @@ static void tcp_fastopen_synack_timer(struct sock *sk, struct request_sock *req)
 			  req->timeout << req->num_timeout, TCP_RTO_MAX);
 }
 
+static bool tcp_rtx_probe0_timed_out(const struct sock *sk,
+				     const struct sk_buff *skb)
+{
+	const struct tcp_sock *tp = tcp_sk(sk);
+	const int timeout = TCP_RTO_MAX * 2;
+	u32 rcv_delta, rtx_delta;
+
+	rcv_delta = inet_csk(sk)->icsk_timeout - tp->rcv_tstamp;
+	if (rcv_delta <= timeout)
+		return false;
+
+	rtx_delta = (u32)msecs_to_jiffies(tcp_time_stamp(tp) -
+			(tp->retrans_stamp ?: tcp_skb_timestamp(skb)));
+
+	return rtx_delta > timeout;
+}
 
 /**
  *  tcp_retransmit_timer() - The TCP retransmit timeout handler
@@ -519,7 +535,7 @@ void tcp_retransmit_timer(struct sock *sk)
 					    tp->snd_una, tp->snd_nxt);
 		}
 #endif
-		if (tcp_jiffies32 - tp->rcv_tstamp > TCP_RTO_MAX) {
+		if (tcp_rtx_probe0_timed_out(sk, skb)) {
 			tcp_write_err(sk);
 			goto out;
 		}
-- 
2.40.1

On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 5:01 AM <menglong8.dong@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> From: Menglong Dong <imagedong@tencent.com>
>
> In tcp_retransmit_timer(), a window shrunk connection will be regarded
> as timeout if 'tcp_jiffies32 - tp->rcv_tstamp > TCP_RTO_MAX'. This is not
> right all the time.
>
> The retransmits will become zero-window probes in tcp_retransmit_timer()
> if the 'snd_wnd==0'. Therefore, the icsk->icsk_rto will come up to
> TCP_RTO_MAX sooner or later.
>
> However, the timer can be delayed and be triggered after 122877ms, not
> TCP_RTO_MAX, as I tested.
>
> Therefore, 'tcp_jiffies32 - tp->rcv_tstamp > TCP_RTO_MAX' is always true
> once the RTO come up to TCP_RTO_MAX, and the socket will die.
>
> Fix this by replacing the 'tcp_jiffies32' with '(u32)icsk->icsk_timeout',
> which is exact the timestamp of the timeout.
>
> However, "tp->rcv_tstamp" can restart from idle, then tp->rcv_tstamp
> could already be a long time (minutes or hours) in the past even on the
> first RTO. So we double check the timeout with the duration of the
> retransmission.
>
> Meanwhile, making "2 * TCP_RTO_MAX" as the timeout to avoid the socket
> dying too soon.
>
> Fixes: 1da177e4c3f4 ("Linux-2.6.12-rc2")
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/CADxym3YyMiO+zMD4zj03YPM3FBi-1LHi6gSD2XT8pyAMM096pg@mail.gmail.com/
> Signed-off-by: Menglong Dong <imagedong@tencent.com>

Reviewed-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>