linux-kernel - Re: [net-next PATCH v4 3/3] net: reserve ports for applications using fixed port numbers

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]

Message-ID: <4B7C159A.3060603@redhat.com>
Date:	Thu, 18 Feb 2010 00:13:14 +0800
From:	Cong Wang <amwang@...hat.com>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
CC:	Octavian Purdila <opurdila@...acom.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Developers <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>
Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH v4 3/3] net: reserve ports for applications using
 fixed port numbers

Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Le mardi 16 février 2010 à 21:06 +0800, Cong Wang a écrit :
>> Octavian Purdila wrote:
>>> On Tuesday 16 February 2010 11:37:04 you wrote:
>>>>>  	BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(struct inet_skb_parm) > sizeof(dummy_skb->cb));
>>>>>
>>>>> +	sysctl_local_reserved_ports = kzalloc(65536 / 8, GFP_KERNEL);
>>>>> +	if (!sysctl_local_reserved_ports)
>>>>> +		goto out;
>>>>> +
>>>> I think we should also consider the ports in ip_local_port_range,
>>>> since we can only reserve the ports in that range.
>>>>
>>> That is subject to changes at runtime, which means we will have to readjust 
>>> the bitmap at runtime which introduces the need for additional synchronization 
>>> operations which I would rather avoid. 
>> Why? As long as the bitmap is global, this will not be hard.
>>
>> Consider that if one user writes a port number which is beyond
>> the ip_local_port_range into ip_local_reserved_ports, we should
>> not accept this, because it doesn't make any sense. But with your
>> patch, we do.
> 
> I disagree with you. This is perfectly OK.
> 
> A port not being flagged in ip_local_reserved_ports doesnt mean it can
> be used for allocation.
> 
> If you want to really block ports from being used at boot, you could for
> example :
> 
> # temporarly reduce the ip_local_port_range
> echo "61000 61001" >/proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_local_port_range
> # Build our bitmap (could be slow, if a remote database is read)
> for port in $LIST_RESERVED_PORT
> do
>   echo $port >/proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_local_reserved_ports
> done
> echo "10000 61000" >/proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_local_port_range
> 
> 

I don't think so, if you want to avoid race condition, you just need to
write the reserved ports before any networking application starts, IOW,
as early as possible during boot.

Thanks.



--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/