netdev - Re: [RFC] API to modify /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_local_reserved

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]

Date:	Thu, 17 May 2012 23:18:18 +0200
From:	Helge Deller <deller@....de>
To:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
CC:	Cong Wang <amwang@...hat.com>,
	Octavian Purdila <octavian.purdila@...el.com>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Frank Danapfel <fdanapfe@...hat.com>,
	Laszlo Ersek <lersek@...hat.com>, shemminger@...tta.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] API to modify /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_local_reserved_ports

On 04/11/2012 12:13 AM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Helge Deller <deller@....de> writes:
> 
>> On 04/09/2012 10:43 AM, Cong Wang wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2012-04-04 at 22:24 +0200, Helge Deller wrote:
>>>> I would like to follow up on my last patch series to be able to modify
>>>> the contents of the /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_local_reserved_ports port list
>>>> from userspace.
>>>>
>>>> My last patch (https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/3/10/187) was based on
>>>> modifications to the proc interface, which - based on the feedback here
>>>> on the list - seemed to not be the right way to go (although I personally
>>>> still like the idea very much :-)).
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, with this RFC I would like to get feedback about a new proposed
>>>> API and attached kernel patch.
>>>>
>>>> The idea is to introduce a new<optname>  value for get/setsockopt()
>>>> named SO_RESERVED_PORTS to get/set the ip_local_reserved_ports
>>>> bitmap via standard get/setsockopt() syscalls.
>>>> As far as I understand this seems to be similiar to how iptables works.
>>>>
>>>> An untested kernel patch for review and feedback is attached below.
>>>>
>>>> In userspace it then would be possible to write a new tool or to extend
>>>> for example the "ip" tool to accept commands like:
>>>> $>  ip reserved_ports add 100-2000
>>>> $>  ip reserved_ports remove 50-60
>>>> $>  ip reserved_ports list     (to show current reserved port list)
>>>>
>>>> This userspace tool could then read the port bitmap from kernel via
>>>> a) socket(PF_INET, SOCK_RAW, IPPROTO_RAW)
>>>> b) getsockopt(3, SOL_SOCKET, SO_RESERVED_PORTS,<bitmaplist>)
>>>> and write back the results after modification via
>>>> c) setsockopt(3, SOL_SOCKET, SO_RESERVED_PORTS,<bitmaplist>)
>>>>
>>>> Would that be an acceptable solution?
>>> Hmm, it is indeed that bitmap fits for syscall rather than /proc file.
>>>
>>> But it seems that using getsockopt()/setsockopt() makes it like it is a
>>> per-socket setting, actually it is a system-wide setting.
>> Yes, that's the reason why I used SOL_SOCKET which configures at least
>> a few system-wide settings too.
>>
>>> So I am
>>> wondering if exporting a binary /proc file for this is a better
>>> solution.
>> Yeah - that's another solution, but (65536 ports)/(8 bits per byte) = 8 KByte,
>> so we
>> may again hit the 4k limit of /proc (unless you do binary reads which should
>> be done with a binary /proc-entry anyway).
>>
>> Again, I'm open to develop any kind of solution which would get an OK
>> here.
> 
> Just looking at proc_do_large_bitmap, it does appear that there is a
> very local 4k limit on writes.
> 
> Can you please just modify proc_do_large_bitmap so that there is not a
> 4k limit on writes.  Ideally the code would just read another 4k from
> userspace when it is getting close to the end of it's 4k buffer, or
> perhaps we just read everything directly from userspace and run slowly.

Hi Eric,

sorry for the very late reply.
Yes, you are right- this is only a local 4K limit. Increasing it allowed me 
to write more ports at once.

With your tips I was now able to build a simple solution which fits my needs.
Based on standard tools like echo and dd (with the seek option) I can
block all ports which I need.

Nevertheless, the current kernel interface is not very flexible.
So, my proposal for a new interface (with tools) still stands. I just need
and advise what would be acceptable. Without any advise I will just leave
everything as is (since I'm now fine with it).

Helge
--
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