netdev - Re: [RFC] EADDRINUSE from bind() on application restart after killing

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: <CANn89iJ1DfmuPz5pGdw=j9o+3O4R9tnTNFKi-ppW1O2sfmnN4g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 30 May 2022 08:28:23 -0700
From:   Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
To:     Muhammad Usama Anjum <usama.anjum@...labora.com>
Cc:     "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
        David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Gabriel Krisman Bertazi <krisman@...labora.com>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Collabora Kernel ML <kernel@...labora.com>,
        Paul Gofman <pgofman@...eweavers.com>,
        "open list:NETWORKING [TCP]" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Sami Farin <hvtaifwkbgefbaei@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] EADDRINUSE from bind() on application restart after killing

On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 6:15 AM Muhammad Usama Anjum
<usama.anjum@...labora.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Thank you for your reply.
>
> On 5/25/22 3:13 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 1:19 AM Muhammad Usama Anjum
> > <usama.anjum@...labora.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> We have a set of processes which talk with each other through a local
> >> TCP socket. If the process(es) are killed (through SIGKILL) and
> >> restarted at once, the bind() fails with EADDRINUSE error. This error
> >> only appears if application is restarted at once without waiting for 60
> >> seconds or more. It seems that there is some timeout of 60 seconds for
> >> which the previous TCP connection remains alive waiting to get closed
> >> completely. In that duration if we try to connect again, we get the error.
> >>
> >> We are able to avoid this error by adding SO_REUSEADDR attribute to the
> >> socket in a hack. But this hack cannot be added to the application
> >> process as we don't own it.
> >>
> >> I've looked at the TCP connection states after killing processes in
> >> different ways. The TCP connection ends up in 2 different states with
> >> timeouts:
> >>
> >> (1) Timeout associated with FIN_WAIT_1 state which is set through
> >> `tcp_fin_timeout` in procfs (60 seconds by default)
> >>
> >> (2) Timeout associated with TIME_WAIT state which cannot be changed. It
> >> seems like this timeout has come from RFC 1337.
> >>
> >> The timeout in (1) can be changed. Timeout in (2) cannot be changed. It
> >> also doesn't seem feasible to change the timeout of TIME_WAIT state as
> >> the RFC mentions several hazards. But we are talking about a local TCP
> >> connection where maybe those hazards aren't applicable directly? Is it
> >> possible to change timeout for TIME_WAIT state for only local
> >> connections without any hazards?
> >>
> >> We have tested a hack where we replace timeout of TIME_WAIT state from a
> >> value in procfs for local connections. This solves our problem and
> >> application starts to work without any modifications to it.
> >>
> >> The question is that what can be the best possible solution here? Any
> >> thoughts will be very helpful.
> >>
> >
> > One solution would be to extend TCP diag to support killing TIME_WAIT sockets.
> > (This has been raised recently anyway)
> I think this has been raised here:
> https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/ba65f579-4e69-ae0d-4770-bc6234beb428@gmail.com/
>
> >
> > Then you could zap all sockets, before re-starting your program.
> >
> > ss -K -ta src :listen_port
> >
> > Untested patch:
> The following command and patch work for my use case. The socket in
> TIME_WAIT_2 or TIME_WAIT state are closed when zapped.
>
> Can you please upstream this patch?

Yes, I will when net-next reopens, thanks for testing it.

>
> >
> > diff --git a/net/ipv4/tcp.c b/net/ipv4/tcp.c
> > index 9984d23a7f3e1353d2e1fc9053d98c77268c577e..1b7bde889096aa800b2994c64a3a68edf3b62434
> > 100644
> > --- a/net/ipv4/tcp.c
> > +++ b/net/ipv4/tcp.c
> > @@ -4519,6 +4519,15 @@ int tcp_abort(struct sock *sk, int err)
> >                         local_bh_enable();
> >                         return 0;
> >                 }
> > +               if (sk->sk_state == TCP_TIME_WAIT) {
> > +                       struct inet_timewait_sock *tw = inet_twsk(sk);
> > +
> > +                       refcount_inc(&tw->tw_refcnt);
> > +                       local_bh_disable();
> > +                       inet_twsk_deschedule_put(tw);
> > +                       local_bh_enable();
> > +                       return 0;
> > +               }
> >                 return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> >         }
>
> --
> Muhammad Usama Anjum