linux-kernel - Re: strange Mac OSX RST behavior

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: <5776A3A4.8000503@hpe.com>
Date:	Fri, 1 Jul 2016 10:08:52 -0700
From:	Rick Jones <rick.jones2@....com>
To:	Jason Baron <jbaron@...mai.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	davem@...emloft.net, eric.dumazet@...il.com
Subject: Re: strange Mac OSX RST behavior

On 07/01/2016 08:10 AM, Jason Baron wrote:
> I'm wondering if anybody else has run into this...
>
> On Mac OSX 10.11.5 (latest version), we have found that when tcp
> connections are abruptly terminated (via ^C), a FIN is sent followed
> by an RST packet.

That just seems, well, silly.  If the client application wants to use 
abortive close (sigh..) it should do so, there shouldn't be this 
little-bit-pregnant, correct close initiation (FIN) followed by a RST.

> The RST is sent with the same sequence number as the
> FIN, and thus dropped since the stack only accepts RST packets matching
> rcv_nxt (RFC 5961). This could also be resolved if Mac OSX replied with
> an RST on the closed socket, but it appears that it does not.
>
> The workaround here is then to reset the connection, if the RST is
> is equal to rcv_nxt - 1, if we have already received a FIN.
>
> The RST attack surface is limited b/c we only accept the RST after we've
> accepted a FIN and have not previously sent a FIN and received back the
> corresponding ACK. In other words RST is only accepted in the tcp
> states: TCP_CLOSE_WAIT, TCP_LAST_ACK, and TCP_CLOSING.
>
> I'm interested if anybody else has run into this issue. Its problematic
> since it takes up server resources for sockets sitting in TCP_CLOSE_WAIT.

Isn't the server application expected to act on the read return of zero 
(which is supposed to be) triggered by the receipt of the FIN segment?

rick jones

> We are also in the process of contacting Apple to see what can be done
> here...workaround patch is below.