netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] Faster/parallel SYN handling to mitigate SYN floods

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 28 May 2012 18:14:29 +0200
From:	Christoph Paasch <christoph.paasch@...ouvain.be>
To:	Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>
CC:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Martin Topholm <mph@...h.dk>, Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>,
	opurdila@...acom.com,
	Hans Schillstrom <hans.schillstrom@...csson.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] Faster/parallel SYN handling to mitigate SYN
 floods

Hello,

On 05/28/2012 01:52 PM, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> The following series is a RFC (Request For Comments) for implementing
> a faster and parallel handling of TCP SYN connections, to mitigate SYN
> flood attacks.  This is against DaveM's net (f0d1b3c2bc), as net-next
> is closed, as DaveM has mentioned numerous times ;-)
> 
> Only IPv4 TCP is handled here. The IPv6 TCP code also need to be
> updated, but I'll deal with that part after we have agreed on a
> solution for IPv4 TCP.
> 
>  Patch 1/2: Is a cleanup, where I split out the SYN cookie handling
>   from tcp_v4_conn_request() into tcp_v4_syn_conn_limit().
> 
>  Patch 2/2: Move tcp_v4_syn_conn_limit() outside bh_lock_sock() in
>   tcp_v4_rcv().  I would like some input on, (1) if this safe without
>   the lock, (2) if we need to do some sock lookup, before calling
>   tcp_v4_syn_conn_limit() (Christoph Paasch
>   <christoph.paasch@...ouvain.be> mentioned something about SYN
>   retransmissions)

Concerning (1):
I think, there are places where you may have troube because you don't
hold the lock.
E.g., in tcp_make_synack (called by tcp_v4_send_synack from your
tcp_v4_syn_conn_limit) there is:

if (sk->sk_userlocks & SOCK_RCVBUF_LOCK &&
	(req->window_clamp > tcp_full_space(sk) ||
	 req->window_clamp == 0))
	req->window_clamp = tcp_full_space(sk);

Thus, tcp_full_space(sk) may have different values between the check and
setting req->window_clamp.


Concerning (2):

Imagine, a SYN coming in, when the reqsk-queue is not yet full. A
request-sock will be added to the reqsk-queue. Then, a retransmission of
this SYN comes in and the queue got full by the time. This time
tcp_v4_syn_conn_limit will do syn-cookies and thus generate a different
seq-number for the SYN/ACK.


But I don't see how you could fix these issues in your proposed framework.

Cheers,
Christoph

> 
> ---
> 
> Jesper Dangaard Brouer (2):
>       tcp: Early SYN limit and SYN cookie handling to mitigate SYN floods
>       tcp: extract syncookie part of tcp_v4_conn_request()
> 
> 
>  net/ipv4/tcp_ipv4.c |  131 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
>  1 files changed, 107 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> 


-- 
Christoph Paasch
PhD Student

IP Networking Lab --- http://inl.info.ucl.ac.be
MultiPath TCP in the Linux Kernel --- http://mptcp.info.ucl.ac.be
Université Catholique de Louvain
-- 
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html