netdev - Re: [PATCH iproute2] ss: Tell user about -EOPNOTSUPP for SOCK

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: <bf9bfd17-9b96-dac4-a429-5470a44aa66c@cumulusnetworks.com>
Date:	Mon, 16 May 2016 19:14:11 -0600
From:	David Ahern <dsa@...ulusnetworks.com>
To:	Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@...gle.com>
Cc:	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH iproute2] ss: Tell user about -EOPNOTSUPP for SOCK_DESTROY

On 5/16/16 7:01 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 8:53 AM, David Ahern <dsa@...ulusnetworks.com> wrote:
>> @@ -2264,7 +2264,7 @@ static int show_one_inet_sock(const struct sockaddr_nl *addr,
>>         if (!(diag_arg->f->families & (1 << r->idiag_family)))
>>                 return 0;
>>         if (diag_arg->f->kill && kill_inet_sock(h, arg) != 0) {
>> -               if (errno == EOPNOTSUPP || errno == ENOENT) {
>> +               if (errno == ENOENT) {
>>                         /* Socket can't be closed, or is already closed. */
>>                         return 0;
>>                 } else {
>
> I don't think you can do this without breaking the functionality of -K.
>
> The else branch will cause show_one_inet_sock to return -1, which will
> cause rtnl_dump_filter to abort and not close any other sockets that
> the user requested killing. That's incorrect, because getting
> EOPNOTSUPP on one socket doesn't necessarily mean we'll get EOPNOTSUPP
> on any future sockets in the same dump.
>
> For example, EOPNOTSUPP can just mean "this socket can't be closed
> because it's a timewait or NEW_SYN_RECV socket". In hindsight it might
> have been better to return EBADFD in those cases, but that still
> doesn't solve the UI problem. If the user does something like "ss -K
> dport = :443", the user would expect the command to kill all TCP
> sockets and not just abort if there happens to be a UDP socket to port
> 443 (which can't be closed because UDP doesn't currently implement
> SOCK_DESTROY).
>

Silently doing nothing is just as bad - or worse. I was running in 
circles trying to figure out why nothing was happening and ss was 
exiting 0.