netdev - Re: TCP_DEFER_ACCEPT wakes up without data

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: <20200607100049.GM28263@breakpoint.cc>
Date:   Sun, 7 Jun 2020 12:00:49 +0200
From:   Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
To:     Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:     Christoph Paasch <christoph.paasch@...il.com>,
        Julian Anastasov <ja@....bg>,
        Wayne Badger <badger@...oo-inc.com>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Leif Hedstrom <lhedstrom@...le.com>
Subject: Re: TCP_DEFER_ACCEPT wakes up without data

Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
> > Sure! TCP_DEFER_ACCEPT delays the creation of the socket until data
> > has been sent by the client *or* the specified time has expired upon
> > which a last SYN/ACK is sent and if the client replies with an ACK the
> > socket will be created and presented to the accept()-call. In the
> > latter case it means that the app gets a socket that does not have any
> > data to be read - which goes against the intention of TCP_DEFER_ACCEPT
> > (man-page says: "Allow a listener to be awakened only when data
> > arrives on the socket.").
> > 
> > In the original thread the proposal was to kill the connection with a
> > TCP-RST when the specified timeout expired (after the final SYN/ACK).
> > 
> > Thus, my question in my first email whether there is a specific reason
> > to not do this.
> > 
> > API-breakage does not seem to me to be a concern here. Apps that are
> > setting DEFER_ACCEPT probably would not expect to get a socket that
> > does not have data to read.
> 
> Thanks for the summary ;)
> 
> I disagree.
> 
> A server might have two modes :
> 
> 1) A fast path, expecting data from user in a small amount of time, from peers not too far away.
> 
> 2) A slow path, for clients far away. Server can implement strategies to control number of sockets
> that have been accepted() but not yet active (no data yet received).

So we can't change DEFER_ACCEPT behaviour.
Any objections to adding TCP_DEFER_ACCEPT2 with the behaviour outlined
by Christoph?