Re: [PATCH mptcp-next RFC v4 2/2] mptcp: send MP_FAIL and infinite mapping on the same ACK

Chenguang Zhao <[email protected]>
Newsgroups dev.linux.lists.mptcp
Message-ID <[email protected]>
在 2026/8/19 00:19, Matthieu Baerts 写道:
> Hi Chenguang,
>
> On 18/08/2026 11:14, Chenguang Zhao wrote:
>> From: Chenguang Zhao <[email protected]>
>>
>> On a single subflow, accepting MP_FAIL must leave MPTCP mode at once
>> (RFC8684 §3.7). Emit the infinite mapping on the MP_FAIL reply ACK,
>> then call mptcp_try_fallback() immediately after.
> I think Sashiko is right about the issue of lacking option space to have
> both the MP_FAIL and the infinite mapping sent together.
Yes, Sashiko is right, I did not consider all the aspects.
> Please also note this from RFC 8684 §3.7.11 [1]:
>
>> This infinite mapping will be a DSS option (Section 3.3) on the first
>> new packet, containing a Data Sequence Mapping that acts retroactively
> The "on the first new packet" seems to suggest the infinite mapping
> shouldn't be attached to the MP_FAIL.
>
> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8684#section-3.7-11
>
>
> Maybe a fallback for the single subflow without csum is enough? Or maybe
> nothing needs to be done? Or maybe this fallback is just an
> optimisation, and can be done in net-next (and both commits can be
> combined)? WDYT?

Hi Matthieu

I am getting a bit confused, so let me summarize my current understanding to verify if I got this right.
In the existing kernel code, fallback will be triggered upon receiving MP_FAIL. However, the FALLBACK_DONE
flag is currently set inside mptcp_update_infinite_map(), which only gets invoked when transmitting a data packet.
This creates a timing window between receiving MP_FAIL and sending the first subsequent packet, resulting in this minor bug.
Our goal is to close this timing window: set the FALLBACK_DONE flag immediately after MP_FAIL is received.
Besides, add a __mptcp_check_fallback() check within mptcp_can_accept_new_subflow() to reject MP_JOIN requests ahead of time.

Is my understanding correct? I will send out a v5 RFC based on the above ideas.      

>> Fixes: 1e39e5a32ad7 ("mptcp: infinite mapping sending")
>> Signed-off-by: Chenguang Zhao <[email protected]>
>> ---
>>  net/mptcp/options.c  | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>>  net/mptcp/pm.c       |  5 +++++
>>  net/mptcp/protocol.c |  8 +-------
>>  3 files changed, 38 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/net/mptcp/options.c b/net/mptcp/options.c
>> index 97da22668dbe..ecf77e77d2de 100644
>> --- a/net/mptcp/options.c
>> +++ b/net/mptcp/options.c
>> @@ -638,7 +638,29 @@ static bool mptcp_established_options_dss(struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb,
>>  	opts->csum_reqd = READ_ONCE(msk->csum_enabled);
>>  	mpext = skb ? mptcp_get_ext(skb) : NULL;
>>  
>> -	if (!skb || (mpext && mpext->use_map) || snd_data_fin_enable) {
>> +	if (unlikely(subflow->send_infinite_map)) {
>> +		unsigned int map_size = TCPOLEN_MPTCP_DSS_BASE + TCPOLEN_MPTCP_DSS_MAP64;
>> +
>> +		if (opts->csum_reqd)
>> +			map_size += TCPOLEN_MPTCP_DSS_CHECKSUM;
>> +
>> +		if (mpext) {
>> +			opts->ext_copy = *mpext;
>> +			opts->ext_copy.infinite_map = 1;
>> +			opts->ext_copy.data_len = 0;
>> +		} else {
>> +			opts->ext_copy.use_map = 1;
>> +			opts->ext_copy.dsn64 = 1;> +			opts->ext_copy.infinite_map = 1;
>> +			opts->ext_copy.data_len = 0;
>> +			opts->ext_copy.data_seq = READ_ONCE(msk->snd_nxt);
>> +			opts->ext_copy.subflow_seq = subflow->rel_write_seq;
>> +		}
> You probably also need to reset "csum". Note that common fields
> (infinite_map and data_len) can also be set once here.
>
> (...)
>
> Cheers,
> Matt
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.