On Mon, Jun 22, 2026 at 6:13 PM Dmitry Safonov [off-list ref] wrote:

Hi Eric,

On Mon, 22 Jun 2026 at 19:52, Eric Dumazet [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

This series fixes a TCP-AO key lookup precedence bug.

TCP-AO stores MKTs in an unsorted list and returns the first match. This
allows newer, less-specific keys (wildcard VRF or shorter prefixes) to
shadow older, more-specific keys if inserted later.

Yeah, at this moment, TCP-AO doesn't allow any intersection of the keys:
If you have matching VRFs, matching keyids for matching peer/masks –
then when the userspace tries to add the second key, setsockopt() is
going to return -EKEYREJECTED/-EEXIST. This is quite different from
TCP-MD5, where the most matching key is the one that's going to be
used by the kernel.

This simplification (not allowing any key intersects) is mostly from a
very permissive RFC5925, where MKT matches can be: ip-addr/mask; ip
address ranges; wildcards of addresses; tcp ports. So, this part was
intentionally simplified until there is a user who requires one of
these things. And based on their requirements, a better data structure
than a simple list could be used. Basically, the longest prefix match
is like adding power-of-two ip ranges. Also, that's another reason why
I wanted an extendable setsockopt(), where one can add new
flags/fields to uAPI without breaking the existing users.

Anyways, if you have the requirement to have intersecting keys with
bigger mask matching (imitating TCP-MD5 behaviour), we can do that,
but I think that needs a new TCP_AO_KEYF_PREFIX_MATCH (or something of
a kind). Then the keys with everything matching, but a prefix could be
added to the socket, and the longest prefix match will be used.

I think one API decision should be documented straight away (besides
the key flag) – how this flag works with multiple keys.
Say there are 4 keys on a socket, all match the peer being connected:
keyA: ip 10.0.0.0 /8 (keyid = 100)
keyB: ip 10.0.0.0 /16 (keyid = 100)
keyC: ip 10.0.0.0 /8 (keyid = 101)
keyD: ip 10.0.0.0 /16 (keyid = 102)

So, keyA and keyB obviously will have to use this new
TCP_AO_KEYF_PREFIX_MATCH. Should keyC or keyD be copied to the
established connection socket or not?
I'd think the presence of TCP_AO_KEYF_PREFIX_MATCH flag on keyC&keyD
should also affect whether they are copied or not. If the flag is not
on keyC&keyD –  they should be copied to the established socket
(together with keyB, preserving the previous behaviour).

Otherwise, if they have the flag, what should happen?
1. keyB + keyC + keyD
2. keyB + keyD
If we go with (2), then if a user wants keyC on a socket, they could
either remove TCP_AO_KEYF_PREFIX_MATCH from keyC or add keyC1 with
mask /16 and the same password as keyC – slightly inconvenient, but
quite flexible.

What do you think?

If intersecting keys are not yet allowed, I think we must return an
error code at the insertion stage,
instead of hoping the user will do "the right thing".

Thanks.