netdev - Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Change in behavior for bound vs unbound sockets

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]

Date:   Wed, 1 Sep 2021 20:41:57 -0700
From:   David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
To:     Saikrishna Arcot <sarcot@...rosoft.com>,
        Paul Menzel <pmenzel@...gen.mpg.de>,
        Mike Manning <mmanning@...tta.att-mail.com>
Cc:     "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Change in behavior for bound vs unbound sockets

On 9/1/21 5:16 PM, Saikrishna Arcot wrote:
> 
>> On 8/31/21 7:29 PM, Paul Menzel wrote:
>>>> Is the intention of those commits also meant to affect sockets that
>>>> are bound to just regular interfaces (and not only VRFs)? If so,
>>>> since this change breaks a userspace application, is it possible to
>>>> add a config that reverts to the old behavior, where bound sockets
>>>> are preferred over unbound sockets?
>>> If it breaks user space, the old behavior needs to be restored
>>> according to Linux' no regression policy. Let's hope, in the future,
>>> there is better testing infrastructure and such issues are noticed earlier.
>>
>> 5.0 was 2-1/2 years ago.
> 
> Does that mean that this should be considered the new behavior? Is it
> possible to at least add a sysctl config to use the older behavior for
> non-VRF socket bindings?
> 
>>
>> Feel free to add tests to tools/testing/selftests/net/fcnal-test.sh to cover any
>> missing permutations, including what you believe is the problem here. Both IPv4
>> and IPv6 should be added for consistency across protocols.
>>
>> nettest.c has a lot of the networking APIs, supports udp, tcp, raw, ...
> 
> Let me try to add a test case there. I'm guessing test cases added there
> should pass with the current version of the kernel (i.e. should reflect the
> current behavior)?
> 

Let's start by seeing test cases that demonstrate the problem.