netdev - 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: <1266326425.3045.53.camel@edumazet-laptop>
Date:	Tue, 16 Feb 2010 14:20:25 +0100
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	Cong Wang <amwang@...hat.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

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


--
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