netdev - Re: A call to revise sockets behaviour

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: <2063167407.40450.1375112877907.JavaMail.mail@webmail09>
Date:	Mon, 29 Jul 2013 15:47:57 +0000 (UTC)
From:	"Artem S. Tashkinov" <t.artem@...os.com>
To:	stephen@...workplumber.org
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: A call to revise sockets behaviour

Jul 29, 2013 09:35:25 PM, Stephen wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jul 2013 15:10:34 +0000 (UTC)
>"Artem S. Tashkinov" wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>> 
>> Currently the Linux kernel disallows to start listening on a TCP/UDP socket if
>> there are open connections against the port, regardless connections status. So even
>> if _all_ you have is some stale (i.e. no longer active connections pending destruction)
>> the kernel will not allow to reuse this socket.
>> 
>> Stephen Hemminger argues that this behaviour is expected even though it's 100%
>> counter productive, it defies common sense and I cannot think of any security implications
>> should this feature be allowed.
>> 
>> Besides, when discussing this bug on Wine's bugzilla I have shown that this behavior not
>> only affect Windows applications running under Wine, but also native POSIX applications.
>> 
>> If nothing else is listening to incoming connections how can _old_ _stale_ connections
>> prevent an application from listening on the port? Windows has no qualms about allowing
>> that, why the Linux kernel works differently?
>> 
>> I want to hear how the current apparently _broken_ behaviour, "The current socket API
>> behavior is unlikely to be changed because so many applications expect it", can be expected.
>> 
>> Also I'd like to know which applications depend on this "feature".
>> 
>> Imagine a situation,
>> 
>> You have an apache server serving connections on port 80. For some reasons a crash in
>> one of its modules causes the daemon crash but during the crash Apache had some open
>> connections on this port.
>> 
>> According to Stephen Hemminger I cannot relaunch Apache until the kernel waits arbitrary
>> time in order to clean stale connections for its networking pool.
>> 
>> I fail to see how this behaviour can be "expected".
>> 
>> More on it here:
>> 
>> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=45571
>> http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26031
>
>I understand your problem, people have been having to deal with it for 30 years.
>The attitude in your response makes it seem like you just discovered fire,
>read a book like Steven's network programming if you need more info.
>
>If you don't use SO_REUSEADDR then yes application has to wait for time wait
>period.
>
>If you do enable SO_REUSEADDR then it is possible to bind to a port with existing
>stale connections.
>

A wine developer clearly showed that this option simply doesn't work. 

http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26031#c21

Output of strace:
getsockopt(24, SOL_SOCKET, SO_REUSEADDR, [0], [4]) = 0
setsockopt(24, SOL_SOCKET, SO_REUSEADDR, [1], 4) = 0
bind(24, {sa_family=AF_INET, sin_port=htons(43012), sin_addr=inet_addr("0.     
0.0.0")}, 16) = -1 EADDRINUSE (Address already in use)

Artem
--
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