Re: [PATCH v2] tcp: Add listening address to SYN flood message

[Eric Dumazet]

On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 4:11 PM Stephen Hemminger
<stephen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 10:59:52 +1100
> Jamie Bainbridge <jamie.bainbridge@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 at 04:20, Stephen Hemminger
> > <stephen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, 11 Nov 2022 14:59:32 +1100
> > > Jamie Bainbridge <jamie.bainbridge@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > > +         xchg(&queue->synflood_warned, 1) == 0) {
> > > > +             if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_IPV6) && sk->sk_family == AF_INET6) {
> > > > +                     net_info_ratelimited("%s: Possible SYN flooding on port %pI6c.%u. %s.\n",
> > > > +                                     proto, &sk->sk_v6_rcv_saddr,
> > > > +                                     sk->sk_num, msg);
> > > > +             } else {
> > > > +                     net_info_ratelimited("%s: Possible SYN flooding on port %pI4.%u. %s.\n",
> > > > +                                     proto, &sk->sk_rcv_saddr,
> > > > +                                     sk->sk_num, msg);
> > >
> > > Minor nit, the standard format for printing addresses would be to use colon seperator before port
> > >
> > >                 if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_IPV6) && sk->sk_family == AF_INET6) {
> > >                         net_info_ratelimited("%s: Possible SYN flooding on [%pI6c]:%u. %s.\n",
> > >                                         proto, &sk->sk_v6_rcv_saddr, sk->sk_num, msg);
> > >                 } else {
> > >                         net_info_ratelimited("%s: Possible SYN flooding on %pI4:%u. %s.\n",
> > >                                         proto, &sk->sk_rcv_saddr, sk->sk_num, msg);
> >
> > I considered this too, though Eric suggested "IP.port" to match tcpdump.
>
> That works, if it happens I doubt it matters.

Note that "ss dst" really needs the [] notation for IPv6

ss -t dst "[::1]"
State                  Recv-Q             Send-Q
    Local Address:Port                            Peer Address:Port
         Process
CLOSE-WAIT             1                  0
            [::1]:50584                                  [::1]:ipp

So we have inconsistency anyway...

As you said, no strong opinion.