netdev - Re: send/sendmsg ENOMEM errors WAS(Re: [PATCH net 6/6] sctp: not return ENOMEM err back in sctp_packet

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: <20161024114823.GE2958@localhost.localdomain>
Date:   Mon, 24 Oct 2016 09:48:23 -0200
From:   Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@...il.com>
To:     Xin Long <lucien.xin@...il.com>
Cc:     Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Vlad Yasevich <vyasevic@...hat.com>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org" <linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org>,
        Michael Tuexen <Michael.Tuexen@...chi.franken.de>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Brenda Butler <bjb@...atatu.com>, gabor@...atatu.com
Subject: Re: send/sendmsg ENOMEM errors WAS(Re: [PATCH net 6/6] sctp: not
 return ENOMEM err back in sctp_packet_transmit

On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 02:30:07PM +0800, Xin Long wrote:
> [1]
> >> This patch doesn't ignore all the ENOMEN cases, only after msg is
> >> enqueued in out queue/send queue, in the lower layer, when alloc
> >> new skb and copy data from old skb, if it fails to alloc new skb, sctp
> >> will ignore this ENOMEM, as this msg will be taken care by retransmit
> >> mechanism, it's reasonable and also safe, user can't feel that.
> >>
> >
> > Yes, that part i got.
> >
> 
> [2]
> >> But for the cases before enqueue, like in sctp_sendmsg,
> >> sctp_datamsg_from_user may return ENOMEM, this err will return
> >> back to user, and can't be ignored.
> >>
> >
> > The hard part is distinguishing between the above case and real
> > failure.
> > I am assuming in the case above user is _not_ required to send
> > again. But in the general case they are required to send again.
> > Correct?
> in case [1], user can't see the ENOMEM, ENOMEM is more like
> a internal err.
> 
> in case [2], user will got the ENOMEM, they should resend this msg,
> It's the the general case mentioned-above
> 
> >
> >> So I don't really think we should change something in manpage, what
> >> do you think ? maybe a little explanation there is also nice, :)
> >
> >
> > Yes, that would help. In particular it should be clear what user space
> > is expected to do. While this is about sctp - I am assuming equivalent
> > behavior for all callers of sendxxx() regardless of protocol.
> here sctp's behavior is actually same with tcp's, in tcp, tcp_transmit_skb
> also may fail to alloc skb, but it doesn't return any err to user, just like
> sctp_packet_transmit. That's why I don't think we should change something
> in manpage, as here sctp is consistent with tcp now.
> 
> make sense ?

I may be saying what is already understood, but just to be clear,
without this patch, there is no consistent way to known if you hit [1]
or [2]. Recovering from it then depends on how the protocol above SCTP
will handle it, if it can handle duplicate messages or not.