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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <87a6o774ib.fsf@cloudflare.com>
Date:   Thu, 03 Jun 2021 10:10:20 +0200
From:   Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@...udflare.com>
To:     Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
Cc:     Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>,
        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>,
        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 10:44 PM CEST, Cong Wang 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.
>
> Thanks.

(Sorry for the delay in reviews. I've been out.)

In my mind uAPI tests should not be tailored to the underlying
implementation (non-blocking read after write over loopback succeeds for
TCP), or the environment they run in (packets don't get dropped due to
OOM, signals don't interrupt syscalls).

If it's a non-blocking socket, then EAGAIN can happen. That's the
contract between the kernel and the user-space.

There is already a helper in this test case for polling and reading with
a timeout (see recv_timeout()). IMO we should be using it in all tests
that use non-blocking I/O.

If it's not being used already, that is most likely my fault.