netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/1] net: Add SO_REUSEPORT_LISTEN

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:	Sat, 19 Dec 2015 08:00:09 +0100
From:	Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:	cgallek@...gle.com, Josh Snyder <josh@...e406.com>,
	Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>,
	Tolga Ceylan <tolga.ceylan@...il.com>,
	Aaron Conole <aconole@...heb.org>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] net: Add SO_REUSEPORT_LISTEN_OFF socket option as drain mode

On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 06:38:03PM -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-12-18 at 19:58 +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > Hi Josh,
> > 
> > On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 08:33:45AM -0800, Josh Snyder wrote:
> > > I was also puzzled that binding succeeded. Looking into the code paths
> > > involved, in inet_csk_get_port, we quickly goto have_snum. From there, we end
> > > up dropping into tb_found. Since !hlist_empty(&tb->owners), we end up checking
> > > that (tb->fastreuseport > 0 && sk->sk_reuseport && uid_eq(tb->fastuid, uid)).
> > > This test passes, so we goto success and bind.
> > > 
> > > Crucially, we are checking the fastreuseport field on the inet_bind_bucket, and
> > > not the sk_reuseport variable on the other sockets in the bucket. Since this
> > > bit is set based on sk_reuseport at the time the first socket binds (see
> > > tb_not_found), I can see no reason why sockets need to keep SO_REUSEPORT set
> > > beyond initial binding.
> > > 
> > > Given this, I believe Willy's patch elegantly solves the problem at hand.
> > 
> > Great, thanks for your in-depth explanation.
> > 
> > Eric, do you think that this patch may be acceptable material for next
> > merge window (given that it's not a fix per-se) ? If so I'll resubmit
> > later.
> 
> I need to check with Craig Gallek, because he was about to upstream a
> change to make SO_REUSEPORT more scalable & sexy (like having an [e]BPF
> filter to perform the selection in an array of sockets)

OK fine. Please note that I also considered using a new value instead of
zero there but I preferred to avoid it since the man talked about zero/
non-zero so I wanted to limit any API change. If Craig adds new values
there then this is something we can reconsider.

Have a nice week-end,
Willy

--
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