FAILED: patch "[PATCH] mptcp: pm: ADD_ADDR 0 is not a new address" failed to apply to 5.10-stable tree

The patch below does not apply to the 5.10-stable tree.
If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or longterm tree, then please email the backport, including the original git commit id to <[email protected]>.

To reproduce the conflict and resubmit, you may use the following commands:

git fetch https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/ linux-5.10.y
git checkout FETCH_HEAD
git cherry-pick -x 57f86203b41c98b322119dfdbb1ec54ce5e3369b
# <resolve conflicts, build, test, etc.>
git commit -s
git send-email --to '<[email protected]>' --in-reply-to '2024083025-evoke-catering-3aab@gregkh' --subject-prefix 'PATCH 5.10.y' HEAD^..

Possible dependencies:

57f86203b41c ("mptcp: pm: ADD_ADDR 0 is not a new address") 4d25247d3ae4 ("mptcp: bypass in-kernel PM restrictions for non-kernel PMs") 14b06811bec6 ("mptcp: Bypass kernel PM when userspace PM is enabled") a88c9e496937 ("mptcp: do not block subflows creation on errors") 86e39e04482b ("mptcp: keep track of local endpoint still available for each msk") f7d6a237d742 ("mptcp: fix per socket endpoint accounting") b29fcfb54cd7 ("mptcp: full disconnect implementation")
59060a47ca50 ("mptcp: clean up harmless false expressions") 3ce0852c86b9 ("mptcp: enforce HoL-blocking estimation")
6511882cdd82 ("mptcp: allocate fwd memory separately on the rx and tx path") 765ff425528f ("mptcp: use lockdep_assert_held_once() instead of open-coding it") 1094c6fe7280 ("mptcp: fix possible divide by zero")
33c563ad28e3 ("selftests: mptcp: add_addr and echo race test") 2843ff6f36db ("mptcp: remote addresses fullmesh")
ee285257a9c1 ("mptcp: drop flags and ifindex arguments") ff5a0b421cb2 ("mptcp: faster active backup recovery")
6da14d74e2bd ("mptcp: cleanup sysctl data and helpers")
1e1d9d6f119c ("mptcp: handle pending data on closed subflow") 71b7dec27f34 ("mptcp: less aggressive retransmission strategy") 33d41c9cd74c ("mptcp: more accurate timeout")

thanks,

greg k-h

------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------

From 57f86203b41c98b322119dfdbb1ec54ce5e3369b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: "Matthieu Baerts (NGI0)" <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2024 08:14:37 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] mptcp: pm: ADD_ADDR 0 is not a new address

The ADD_ADDR 0 with the address from the initial subflow should not be considered as a new address: this is not something new. If the host receives it, it simply means that the address is available again.

When receiving an ADD_ADDR for the ID 0, the PM already doesn't consider it as new by not incrementing the 'add_addr_accepted' counter. But the 'accept_addr' might not be set if the limit has already been reached:
this can be bypassed in this case. But before, it is important to check that this ADD_ADDR for the ID 0 is for the same address as the initial subflow. If not, it is not something that should happen, and the ADD_ADDR can be ignored.

Note that if an ADD_ADDR is received while there is already a subflow opened using the same address, this ADD_ADDR is ignored as well. It means that if multiple ADD_ADDR for ID 0 are received, there will not be any duplicated subflows created by the client.

index 3f8dbde243f1..37f6dbcd8434 100644
@@ -226,7 +226,9 @@ void mptcp_pm_add_addr_received(const struct sock *ssk,
 		} else {
 			__MPTCP_INC_STATS(sock_net((struct sock *)msk), MPTCP_MIB_ADDADDRDROP);
 		}
-	} else if (!READ_ONCE(pm->accept_addr)) {
+	/* id0 should not have a different address */
+	} else if ((addr->id == 0 && !mptcp_pm_nl_is_init_remote_addr(msk, addr)) ||
+		   (addr->id > 0 && !READ_ONCE(pm->accept_addr))) {
 		mptcp_pm_announce_addr(msk, addr, true);
 		mptcp_pm_add_addr_send_ack(msk);
 	} else if (mptcp_pm_schedule_work(msk, MPTCP_PM_ADD_ADDR_RECEIVED)) {

index a93450ded50a..f891bc714668 100644
@@ -760,6 +760,15 @@ static void mptcp_pm_nl_add_addr_received(struct mptcp_sock *msk)
 	}
 }
 
+bool mptcp_pm_nl_is_init_remote_addr(struct mptcp_sock *msk,
+				     const struct mptcp_addr_info *remote)
+{
+	struct mptcp_addr_info mpc_remote;
+
+	remote_address((struct sock_common *)msk, &mpc_remote);
+	return mptcp_addresses_equal(&mpc_remote, remote, remote->port);
+}
+
 void mptcp_pm_nl_addr_send_ack(struct mptcp_sock *msk)
 {
 	struct mptcp_subflow_context *subflow;

index 26eb898a202b..3b22313d1b86 100644
@@ -993,6 +993,8 @@ void mptcp_pm_add_addr_received(const struct sock *ssk,
 void mptcp_pm_add_addr_echoed(struct mptcp_sock *msk,
 			      const struct mptcp_addr_info *addr);
 void mptcp_pm_add_addr_send_ack(struct mptcp_sock *msk);
+bool mptcp_pm_nl_is_init_remote_addr(struct mptcp_sock *msk,
+				     const struct mptcp_addr_info *remote);
 void mptcp_pm_nl_addr_send_ack(struct mptcp_sock *msk);
 void mptcp_pm_rm_addr_received(struct mptcp_sock *msk,
 			       const struct mptcp_rm_list *rm_list);

Hi Greg,

Thank you for the notification!

(...)

The code is too different in v5.10, and I don't think it is worth it to have this small fix in v5.10.

Cheers,
Matt

Sponsored by the NGI0 Core fund.