netdev - Re: ping (iputils) review (call for help)

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: <CADvbK_eEOPJa5JXCysaywF9JYSd2vZUcjbKZ9T5ZZmbwrCLupw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 3 Nov 2022 16:27:53 -0400
From:   Xin Long <lucien.xin@...il.com>
To:     Petr Vorel <pvorel@...e.cz>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>,
        Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>,
        David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@...nwall.com>,
        Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>
Subject: Re: ping (iputils) review (call for help)

On Thu, Nov 3, 2022 at 1:24 PM Petr Vorel <pvorel@...e.cz> wrote:
>
> Hi Xin,
>
> > On Thu, Nov 3, 2022 at 7:30 AM Petr Vorel <pvorel@...e.cz> wrote:
>
> > > Hi,
>
> > > I'm sorry to bother you about userspace. I'm preparing new iputils release and
> > > I'm not sure about these two patches.  As there has been many regressions,
> > > review from experts is more than welcome.
>
> > > If you have time to review them, it does not matter if you post your
> > > comments/RBT in github or here (as long as you keep Cc me so that I don't
> > > overlook it).
>
> > > BTW I wonder if it make sense to list Hideaki YOSHIFUJI as NETWORKING
> > > IPv4/IPv6 maintainer. If I'm not mistaken, it has been a decade since he was active.
>
> > > * ping: Call connect() before sending/receiving
> > > https://github.com/iputils/iputils/pull/391
> > > => I did not even knew it's possible to connect to ping socket, but looks like
> > > it works on both raw socket and on ICMP datagram socket.
> > The workaround of not using the PING socket is:
>
> > # sysctl -w net.ipv4.ping_group_range="1 0"
>
> Well raw socket requires capabilities or setuid. Because some distros has moved to
> ICMP datagram socket, this approach requires root.
>
>
> > > * ping: revert "ping: do not bind to device when destination IP is on device
> > > https://github.com/iputils/iputils/pull/396
> > > => the problem has been fixed in mainline and stable/LTS kernels therefore I
> > > suppose we can revert cc44f4c as done in this PR. It's just a question if we
> > > should care about people who run new iputils on older (unfixed) kernels.
> > cc44f4c has also caused some regression though it's only seen in the
> > kselftests, and that is why I made the kernel fix. I don't know which
> > regression is more serious regardless of the patch's correctness. :-).
> I'd prefer users not being affected than fixed tests and ping not working.
>
> BTW can you be more specific, which kselftests is affected?
> Ideally link to lore. In [1] you just mentioned "Jianlin noticed", I haven't
> found anything on lore.
Sure, here is the bz you can check for more details:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2054023

>
> > or can we put some changelog to say that this revert should be
> > backported together with the kernel commit?
> Well, this practically means new iputils (compiled from git) will not work on
> older (unfixed) kernel. Probably not many people will be affected, but why
> to upset anybody?
>
> If the problem now is just broken kselftests, I'd prefer keeping it long enough
> (at least 1 year?) before reverting it.
I'm okay with it as no real customers complain about it so far.

Thanks.

>
> Kind regards,
> Petr
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/ea03066bc7256ab86df8d3501f3440819305be57.1644988852.git.lucien.xin@gmail.com/