netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 0/5] SCTP updates

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: <53BD6167.1030000@gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 09 Jul 2014 11:36:07 -0400
From:	Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@...il.com>
To:	Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>,
	Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com>
CC:	davem@...emloft.net, geirola@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/5] SCTP updates

On 07/09/2014 11:13 AM, Neil Horman wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 09, 2014 at 03:28:03PM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>> On 07/09/2014 12:49 PM, Neil Horman wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jul 09, 2014 at 11:57:37AM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>>>> On 07/08/2014 04:41 PM, Neil Horman wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 04:05:26PM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>>>>>> On 07/08/2014 01:14 PM, Neil Horman wrote:
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> since you're adding cmsg's from rfc6458, do you also want to add some
>>>>>>> deprecation warnings around the use of SCTP_SNDRCVINFO too, so we can start to
>>>>>>> schedule its eventual removal?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sure, we can do that. Do you want me to include it into the set?
>>>>>
>>>>> If you're plan is to implement 6458, then yes, I think that would be good.
>>>>
>>>> Looking a bit closer at it, all our pr_warn_ratelimited(DEPRECATED ...)
>>>> warnings in SCTP are being done in 'slowpath' {set,get}sockopt(2) operations
>>>> only, which is fine. What you're suggesting is to place similar ratelimited
>>>> warnings (due to different possible pids on the machine) into the 'fastpath'
>>>> where we get and set cmsg message headers.
>>>>
>>>> While that may be fine for {set,get}sockopt(2) that's called once or very few
>>>> times, I'm not sure this is a good idea in SCTP_SNDRCVINFO as it will yield
>>>> to unnecessary spamming the klog since up to now this is the only way our
>>>> users can set or receive this info. I'm not sure we want to annoy users like
>>>> that ...
>>>>
>>> Then we wrap it in a ONCE macro so that it only triggers on the first use
>>> instance.
>>
>> I'm not convinced about this so far. The whole point is that we also provide the
>> pid just as we currently do, so that we give the user a chance to possibly pin
>> point the process that needs code change to not use the deprecated API anymore.
>>
>>>> In how many years do you plan a removal ... I think we're stuck with uapi
>>>> basically forever as we don't want to break old binaries, no? ;/
>>>>
>>> I thought we could remove things on a schedule if we followed the deprecation
>>> process, but that may just be for sysfs.  Regardless, it would still be nice to
>>> inform people they are using an older api.
>>
>> I think we rather might be stuck with also the deprecated stuff forever, just
>> as AF_PACKET still has to carry around the old spkt stuff. :( So if we don't
>> remove anything, there's actually also no point to spam the log about it, if
>> everyone can/should read it from the RFC anyway.
>>
> So this begs the question as to why we have deprecation warnings to begin with.
> At what point do we draw the line where we can change some aspect of the user
> api.  I agree if the answer is never, then yeah we're stuck, but then, why
> bother announcing deprecation warnings at all?

I think we can deprecate user API after a significantly long period of time
(like 5 or 6 years).  That's why we also have a deprecation schedule that can
be updated and hopefully that's something people pay attention to.

The problem here is deprecation of ancillary data and that's is a lot tougher
then socket options.  In this particular case (SCTP_SNDRCVINFO vs SCTP_RCVINFO),
I don't think there is any way to deprecate the SCTP_SNDRCVINFO since the event
enabling it is the same as the one for SCTP_RCVINFO.  This was a mistake in the
spec.  Ancillary data should not have been enabled using even notification api,
as it is not an event, but we now have to live with it.

-vlad

> 
> Neil
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sctp" 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