netdev - Re: why do we need printk on sending syn flood cookie?

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 2 Aug 2010 15:49:33 -0700
From:	Mitchell Erblich <erblichs@...thlink.net>
To:	Mitchell Erblich <erblichs@...thlink.net>
Cc:	Franchoze Eric <franchoze@...dex.ru>,
	Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: why do we need printk on sending syn flood cookie?


On Aug 2, 2010, at 3:30 PM, Mitchell Erblich wrote:

> 
> On Aug 2, 2010, at 2:14 PM, Franchoze Eric wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 02.08.10, 22:10, "Mitchell Erblich" <erblichs@...thlink.net>:
>> 
>>> 
>>> On Aug 2, 2010, at 9:11 AM, Franchoze Eric wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 02.08.10, 12:17, "Florian Westphal" :
>>>> 
>>>>> Franchoze Eric  wrote:
>>>>>> Just sirious why do we need printk each 1 second (60*HZ) about possible syn-flood? It really floods dmesg. Is there something dengerous? I have suggestion to turn off printk about sending tcp cookie each 1 second.
>>>>> 
>>>>> It is handled exactly like other printks in the networking path,
>>>>> e.g. receipt of tcp wscale == 15.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Why does this need special treatment?
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> For now I see "possible SYN flooding on port %d. Sending cookies.\n" message each second on my server. I know that there are a lot of SYNs and I know that kernel sends cookie. Why do I need so mach printk?
>>>> So I suggested add new value to /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_syncookies, which will enable cookie but this printk will be turned off.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Once print per sec is a very good GENERIC informative msg to an admin that 
>>> this system either has some  very small config'd or default values
>>> (normally set up as a percentage of memory or set sock option and/or .. )
>>> and/or that for some reason that a large number of SYNs are being rec'vd
>>> and/or that a number of connections are being un/intentionally being
>>> retried and/or dropped
>>> 
>> 
>> There is no much settings to tune syn requests.
>> tcp_max_syn_backlog, tcp_synack_retries, tcp_abort_on_overflow
> 
> The key is that you need a reproduceable test case and determine what type of
> changes you want to make.
> 
> also review the listen (backlog) code and : tcp.h: TCP_SYNQ_HSIZE
> 
> 	Other than that, their are MANY changes that can be done to scale this section
> 	of code.
> 
> 	What is the latency of serving an ACK? What is a RTT of a SYN/ACK?
> 	Why is each client trying to ESTABLISH a connection at the same time?
> 	etc.
> 
> 	Is your server capable of serving 3000 clients? Are they sending 1 MTU per sec,
> 	or are they doing 1000s of pings per sec, or are they doing bulk-data-transfer or?
> 	Thus, even if you are able to keep 3000 connections open at one time, can
> 	 your server properly respond to their requests in a timely manner?
> 
> 	Mitchell Erblich
> 
>> 
>> As for me, than I have about 3000 clients which do a little bit less then 3000 SYNs for nginx port.
>> I'm ok with sending syn cookies to clients. Also it's not possible to turn syncs off with setting
>> bigger value to tcp_max_syn_backlog and application works well so I would simple remove 
>> this messages from dmesg.
>> 
>> If I limit syncs with iptables it starts to drop needed packets. So it's no solution. That's why I think that we need turn off 
>> printk without turning off syn cookies.  
>> 
>>> Remember each printk may only be a small fraction of the number of SYNs
>>> rcv'd and this fraction COULD depend on the Mb/Gb of the intf(s) or more
>>> likely some type of  avg of summation of the number of network paths
>>> involved.
>>> 
>>> Mitchell Erblich
>>> 
>>> 

actually, MAYBE a PATCH of the freq (1x/sec, 1x/5 secs, 1x/30secs, 1x/60secs, 1x/3600 secs) with
1x per sec as the default of the printks WOULD be considered?

Mitchell Erblich

>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> 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
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
> 
> --
> 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

--
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