netdev - Re: [Patch bpf] selftests/bpf: Retry for EAGAIN in udp_redir_to

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 20 May 2021 22:12:25 -0700
From:   Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
To:     Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
Cc:     John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, Cong Wang <cong.wang@...edance.com>,
        Jiang Wang <jiang.wang@...edance.com>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@...udflare.com>,
        Lorenz Bauer <lmb@...udflare.com>
Subject: Re: [Patch bpf] selftests/bpf: Retry for EAGAIN in udp_redir_to_connected()

On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 1:44 PM Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 1:14 PM Andrii Nakryiko
> <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > Bugs do happen though, so if you can detect some error condition
> > instead of having an infinite loop, then do it.
>
> You both are underestimating the problem. There are two different things
> to consider here:
>
> 1) Kernel bugs: This is known unknown, we certainly do not know
> how many bugs we have, otherwise they would have been fixed
> already. So we can not predict the consequence of the bug either,
> assuming a bug could only cause packet drop is underestimated.
>
> 2) Configurations: For instance, firewall rules. If the selftests are run
> in a weird firewall setup which drops all UDP packets, there is nothing
> we can do in the test itself. If we have to detect this, then we would
> have to detect netem cases too where packets can be held indefinitely
> or reordered arbitrarily. The possibilities here are too many to detect,
> hence I argue the selftests should setup its own non-hostile environment,
> which has nothing to do with any specific program.
>
> This is why I ask you to draw a boundary: what we can assume and
> what we can't. My boundary is obviously clear: we just assume the
> environment is non-hostile and we can't predict any kernel bugs,
> nor their consequences.

It doesn't matter. Instead of having an endless loop, please add a
counter and limit the number of iterations to some reasonable number.
That's all, no one is asking you to do something impossible, just
prevent looping forever in some unforeseen situations and just fail
the test instead.

>
> Thanks.