netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/1] net: Add SO_REUSEPORT_LISTEN

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: <1450492683.8474.123.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com>
Date:	Fri, 18 Dec 2015 18:38:03 -0800
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>, cgallek@...gle.com
Cc:	Josh Snyder <josh@...e406.com>, Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>,
	Tolga Ceylan <tolga.ceylan@...il.com>,
	Aaron Conole <aconole@...heb.org>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] net: Add SO_REUSEPORT_LISTEN_OFF socket option as
 drain mode

On Fri, 2015-12-18 at 19:58 +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> Hi Josh,
> 
> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 08:33:45AM -0800, Josh Snyder wrote:
> > I was also puzzled that binding succeeded. Looking into the code paths
> > involved, in inet_csk_get_port, we quickly goto have_snum. From there, we end
> > up dropping into tb_found. Since !hlist_empty(&tb->owners), we end up checking
> > that (tb->fastreuseport > 0 && sk->sk_reuseport && uid_eq(tb->fastuid, uid)).
> > This test passes, so we goto success and bind.
> > 
> > Crucially, we are checking the fastreuseport field on the inet_bind_bucket, and
> > not the sk_reuseport variable on the other sockets in the bucket. Since this
> > bit is set based on sk_reuseport at the time the first socket binds (see
> > tb_not_found), I can see no reason why sockets need to keep SO_REUSEPORT set
> > beyond initial binding.
> > 
> > Given this, I believe Willy's patch elegantly solves the problem at hand.
> 
> Great, thanks for your in-depth explanation.
> 
> Eric, do you think that this patch may be acceptable material for next
> merge window (given that it's not a fix per-se) ? If so I'll resubmit
> later.

I need to check with Craig Gallek, because he was about to upstream a
change to make SO_REUSEPORT more scalable & sexy (like having an [e]BPF
filter to perform the selection in an array of sockets)




--
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