netdev - Re: [RFC v5 0/5] Add virtio transport for AF

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: <20160412135957.GB29405@stefanha-x1.localdomain>
Date:	Tue, 12 Apr 2016 14:59:57 +0100
From:	Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...hat.com>
To:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc:	Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...il.com>,
	Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@...ker.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, Matt Benjamin <mbenjamin@...hat.com>,
	Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@...aro.org>,
	Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@...aro.org>,
	marius vlad <marius.vlad0@...il.com>, areis@...hat.com,
	Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Greg Kurz <gkurz@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [RFC v5 0/5] Add virtio transport for AF_VSOCK

On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 03:54:08PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 11:45:48AM +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 04:35:05PM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2016-04-01 at 15:23 +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> > > > This series is based on Michael Tsirkin's vhost branch (v4.5-rc6).
> > > > 
> > > > I'm about to process Claudio Imbrenda's locking fixes for virtio-vsock but
> > > > first I want to share the latest version of the code.  Several people are
> > > > playing with vsock now so sharing the latest code should avoid duplicate work.
> > > 
> > > Thanks for this, I've been using it in my project and it mostly seems
> > > fine.
> > > 
> > > One wrinkle I came across, which I'm not sure if it is by design or a
> > > problem is that I can see this sequence coming from the guest (with
> > > other activity in between):
> > > 
> > >     1) OP_SHUTDOWN w/ flags == SHUTDOWN_RX
> > >     2) OP_SHUTDOWN w/ flags == SHUTDOWN_TX
> > >     3) OP_SHUTDOWN w/ flags == SHUTDOWN_TX|SHUTDOWN_RX

How did you trigger this sequence?  I'd like to reproduce it.

> > > I orignally had my backend close things down at #2, however this meant
> > > that when #3 arrived it was for a non-existent socket (or, worse, an
> > > active one if the ports got reused). I checked v5 of the spec
> > > proposal[0] which says:
> > >     If these bits are set and there are no more virtqueue buffers
> > >     pending the socket is disconnected.
> > > 
> > > but I'm not entirely sure if this behaviour contradicts this or not
> > > (the bits have both been set at #2, but not at the same time).
> > > 
> > > BTW, how does one tell if there are no more virtqueue buffers pending
> > > or not while processing the op?
> > 
> > #2 is odd.  The shutdown bits are sticky so they cannot be cleared once
> > set.  I would have expected just #1 and #3.  The behavior you observe
> > look like a bug.
> > 
> > The spec text does not convey the meaning of OP_SHUTDOWN well.
> > OP_SHUTDOWN SHUTDOWN_TX|SHUTDOWN_RX means no further rx/tx is possible
> > for this connection.  "there are no more virtqueue buffers pending the
> > socket" really means that this isn't an immediate close from the
> > perspective of the application.  If the application still has unread rx
> > buffers then the socket stays readable until the rx data has been fully
> > read.
> 
> Yes but you also wrote:
> 	If these bits are set and there are no more virtqueue buffers
> 	pending the socket is disconnected.
> 
> how does remote know that there are no buffers pending and so it's safe
> to reuse the same source/destination address now?  Maybe destination
> should send RST at that point?

You are right, the source/destination address could be reused while the
remote still has the connection in their table.  Connection
establishment would fail with a RST reply.

I can think of two solutions:

1. Implementations must remove connections from their table as soon as
   SHUTDOWN_TX|SHUTDOWN_RX is received.  This way the source/destination
   address tuple can be reused immediately, i.e. new connections with
   the same source/destination would be possible while an application is
   still draining the receive buffers of an old connection.

2. Extend the connection lifecycle so that an A->B
   SHUTDOWN_TX|SHUTDOWN_RX must be followed by a by a B->A RST to close
   a connection.  This way the source/destination address is only in use
   once at a time.

Option #2 seems safer because there is no overlap in source/destination
address usage.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (474 bytes)