netdev - Re: non-blocking connect for kernel SCTP sockets

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:   Wed, 2 May 2018 17:46:23 +0800
From:   Xin Long <lucien.xin@...il.com>
To:     Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>
Cc:     network dev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@...il.com>,
        Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>, Gang He <ghe@...e.com>,
        GuoQing Jiang <gqjiang@...e.com>
Subject: Re: non-blocking connect for kernel SCTP sockets

On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 5:06 PM, Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> while investigating a bug, we noticed that DLM tries to connect an SCTP
> socket in non-blocking mode using
>
>         result = sock->ops->connect(sock, (struct sockaddr *)&daddr, addr_len,
>                                     O_NONBLOCK);
>
> which does not work. The reason is that inet_dgram_connect() cannot pass
> its flags argument to sctp_connect() so that __sctp_connect() which does
> the actual waiting resorts to checking sk->sk_socket->file->f_flags
> instead. As the socket used by DLM is a kernel socket with no associated
> file, it ends up blocking.
>
> TCP doesn't suffer from this problem as for TCP, the waiting is done in
> inet_stream_connect() which has the flags argument. I also checked other
> proto::connect handlers and sctp_connect() seems to be the only one with
> this kind of problem.
>
> This could be worked around in DLM and further experiments indicate
> current DLM code wouldn't actually handle the non-blocking connect
> properly. But I still feel ignoring the flags argument is rather a trap
> that should be fixed.
It is a bug, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1251530

We have the fix which also includes some cleanup, and needs to do
more testing.

>
> I have prepared a series adding flags argument to proto::connect and
> using it in sctp_connect() and __sctp_connect(). But I'm not sure if
> it's not too big hammer to address issue only affecting one handler.
> So my question is: would such generic approach be preferred or should we,
> rather make SCTP work the way TCP does, i.e. move the waiting from,
> proto::connect() to proto_ops::connect()? This would require introducing
> inet_seqpacket_connect() as inet_dgram_connect() is primarily intended
> for use with UDP.)
We don't fix it in the generic proto::connect, which will afftect
many other places.

We're replacing only sctp's proto_ops::connect with sctp_connect and
leave its proto::connect as NULL, so that it can get this flags param
without touching the generic struct and code.