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: <20180521113939.GA17593@hmswarspite.think-freely.org>
Date:   Mon, 21 May 2018 07:39:39 -0400
From:   Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>
To:     Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@...il.com>
Cc:     Xin Long <lucien.xin@...il.com>,
        network dev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net,
        tuexen@...muenster.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] sctp: add support for SCTP_REUSE_PORT sockopt

On Sun, May 20, 2018 at 10:54:04PM -0300, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner 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.
> 
> IOW, the patch allows the application to use such restrictions against
> itself and nothing else, which undermines the patch idea.
> 
Agreed.

> 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.
> 
I'm also not privy to why the sctp option was proposed, though I expect that the
lack of standardization of SO_REUSEPORT probably had something to do with it.
As for the reasoning behind restriction to only 1:1 sockets, if I had to guess,
I would say it likely because it creates ordering difficulty at the application
level.

CC-ing Michael Tuxen, who I believe had some input on this RFC.  Hopefully he
can shed some light on this.

Neil

> > 
> > 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
> > 
>