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: <4B7C142C.9040707@redhat.com>
Date:	Thu, 18 Feb 2010 00:07:08 +0800
From:	Cong Wang <amwang@...hat.com>
To:	Octavian Purdila <opurdila@...acom.com>
CC:	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>,
	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH v4 3/3] net: reserve ports for applications using
 fixed port numbers

Octavian Purdila wrote:
> On Tuesday 16 February 2010 15:06:26 you wrote:
>> 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.
>>
> 
> For the more important point see bellow, but with regard to reallocation, this 
> means we need to at least use rcu_read_lock() in the fast path to avoid races 
> between freeing the old bitmap and doing a read in progress. 
> 
> Granted, that is a light operation, but would it makes things so much more 
> complicated just so that we save one memory page (assuming the range is the 
> default [32000 64000] one).


Why not just allocate the bitmap for all ports? 65535/8 bytes are
needed.

> 
>> 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 think it should be allowed. I see ip_local_reserved_ports and ip_local_range 
> as independent settings that can be change at any time.


According to the original purpose, they are not.

> 
> That way I can flag port 8080 even if the current range is [32000, 64000] and 
> then later I can expand the range to [1024, 64000] without loosing the 8080 
> reservation.

Then its meaning is changed, bind(0) will never have chance to get 8080,
thus reserving 8080 for this purpose fails.

I want to always keep its original meaning, if the local_port_range goes
out, then local_reserved_port should be empty at the same time, you have
to reset it after changing 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