netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] sctp: add support for SCTP_REUSE

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: <CALx6S377wxigOqe2zhhAOUrYJzTZ27NdKYC--LhVyJ0X=wVwuA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sun, 20 May 2018 20:59:35 -0700
From:   Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>
To:     Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@...il.com>
Cc:     Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>,
        Xin Long <lucien.xin@...il.com>,
        network dev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-sctp @ vger . kernel . org" <linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] sctp: add support for SCTP_REUSE_PORT sockopt

On Sun, May 20, 2018 at 6:54 PM, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
<marcelo.leitner@...il.com> wrote:
> On Sun, May 20, 2018 at 08:50:59PM -0400, Neil Horman wrote:
>> On Sat, May 19, 2018 at 03:44:40PM +0800, Xin Long wrote:
>> > This feature is actually already supported by sk->sk_reuse which can be
>> > set by SO_REUSEADDR. But it's not working exactly as RFC6458 demands in
>> > section 8.1.27, like:
>> >
>> >   - This option only supports one-to-one style SCTP sockets
>> >   - This socket option must not be used after calling bind()
>> >     or sctp_bindx().
>> >
>> > Besides, SCTP_REUSE_PORT sockopt should be provided for user's programs.
>> > Otherwise, the programs with SCTP_REUSE_PORT from other systems will not
>> > work in linux.
>> >
>> > This patch reuses sk->sk_reuse and works pretty much as SO_REUSEADDR,
>> > just with some extra setup limitations that are neeeded when it is being
>> > enabled.
>> >
>> > "It should be noted that the behavior of the socket-level socket option
>> > to reuse ports and/or addresses for SCTP sockets is unspecified", so it
>> > leaves SO_REUSEADDR as is for the compatibility.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Xin Long <lucien.xin@...il.com>
>> > ---
>> >  include/uapi/linux/sctp.h |  1 +
>> >  net/sctp/socket.c         | 48 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> >  2 files changed, 49 insertions(+)
>> >
>> A few things:
>>
>> 1) I agree with Tom, this feature is a complete duplication of the SK_REUSEPORT
>> socket option.  I understand that this is an implementation of the option in the
>> RFC, but its definately a duplication of a feature, which makes several things
>> really messy.
>>
>> 2) The overloading of the sk_reuse opeion is a bad idea, for several reasons.
>> Chief among them is the behavioral interference between this patch and the
>> SO_REUSEADDR socket level option, that also sets this feature.  If you set
>> sk_reuse via SO_REUSEADDR, you will set the SCTP port reuse feature regardless
>> of the bind or 1:1/1:m state of the socket.  Vice versa, if you set this socket
>> option via the SCTP_PORT_REUSE option you will inadvertently turn on address
>> reuse for the socket.  We can't do that.
>
> Given your comments, going a bit further here, one other big
> implication is that a port would never be able to be considered to
> fully meet SCTP standards regarding reuse because a rogue application
> may always abuse of the socket level opt to gain access to the port.
>
There are mitigations in SO_REUSEPORT to prevent port hijacking. Don't
see why they can't be applied to SCTP.

Tom

> IOW, the patch allows the application to use such restrictions against
> itself and nothing else, which undermines the patch idea.
>
> I lack the knowledge on why the SCTP option was proposed in the RFC. I
> guess they had a good reason to add the restriction on 1:1/1:m style.
> Does the usage of the current imply in any risk to SCTP sockets? If
> yes, that would give some grounds for going forward with the SCTP
> option.
>
>>
>> Its a bit frustrating, since SO_REUSEPORT is widely available on multiple
>> operating systems, but isn't standard (AFAIK).  I would say however, given the
>> prevalence of the socket level option, we should likely advocate for the removal
>> of the sctp specific option, or at the least implement and document it as being
>
> Is it possible, to remove/deprecate an option once it is published on a RFC?
>
>> an alias for SO_REUSEPORT
>>
>>
>> As this stands however, its a NACK from me.
>>
>> Neil
>>