Date:   Wed, 12 Apr 2023 18:04:27 +0200
From:   Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>
To:     Matthieu Baerts <matthieu.baerts@...sares.net>
Cc:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org,
        davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org, pabeni@...hat.com,
        edumazet@...gle.com, mathew.j.martineau@...ux.intel.com,
        mptcp@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH net,v2] uapi: linux: restore IPPROTO_MAX to 256 and add
 IPPROTO_UAPI_MAX

On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 05:22:36PM +0200, Matthieu Baerts wrote:
> Hi Jakub,
> 
> On 12/04/2023 16:21, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Thu, 6 Apr 2023 12:45:25 +0200 Matthieu Baerts wrote:
> >> The modification in the kernel looks good to me. But I don't know how to
> >> make sure this will not have any impact on MPTCP on the userspace side,
> >> e.g. somewhere before calling the socket syscall, a check could be done
> >> to restrict the protocol number to IPPROTO_MAX and then breaking MPTCP
> >> support.
> > 
> > Then again any code which stores the ipproto in an unsigned char will 
> > be broken. A perfect solution is unlikely to exist.

Yes, this is tricky.

> I wonder if the root cause is not the fact we mix the usage of the
> protocol parameter from the socket syscall (int/s32) and the protocol
> field from the IP header (u8).
> 
> To me, the enum is linked to the socket syscall, not the IP header. In
> this case, it would make sense to have a dedicated "MAX" macro for the
> IP header, no?
> 
> >> Is it not safer to expose something new to userspace, something
> >> dedicated to what can be visible on the wire?
> >>
> >> Or recommend userspace programs to limit to lower than IPPROTO_RAW
> >> because this number is marked as "reserved" by the IANA anyway [1]?
> >>
> >> Or define something new linked to UINT8_MAX because the layer 4 protocol
> >> field in IP headers is limited to 8 bits?
> >> This limit is not supposed to be directly linked to the one of the enum
> >> you modified. I think we could even say it works "by accident" because
> >> "IPPROTO_RAW" is 255. But OK "IPPROTO_RAW" is there from the "beginning"
> >> [2] :)
> > 
> > I'm not an expert but Pablo's patch seems reasonable to me TBH.
> > Maybe I'm missing some extra MPTCP specific context?
> 
> I was imagining userspace programs doing something like:
> 
>     if (protocol < 0 || protocol >= IPPROTO_MAX)
>         die();
> 
>     syscall(...);

Is this theoretical, or you think any library might be doing this
already? I lack of sufficient knowledge of the MPTCP ecosystem to
evaluate myself.

> With Pablo's modification and such userspace code, this will break MPTCP
> support.
> 
> I'm maybe/probably worry for nothing, I don't know any specific lib
> doing that and to be honest, I don't know what is usually done in libc
> and libs implemented on top of that. On the other hand, it is hard to
> guess how it is used everywhere.
> 
> So yes, maybe it is fine?

It has been 3 years since the update, I think this is the existing
scenario looks like this:

1) Some userspace programs that rely on IPPROTO_MAX broke in some way
   and people fixed it by using IPPROTO_RAW (as you mentioned Matthieu)

2) Some userspace programs rely on the IPPROTO_MAX value in some way and
   they are broken (yet they need to be fixed).

If IPPROTO_MAX is restore, both two type of software described in the
scenarios above will be fine.

If Matthieu consider that likeliness that MPTCP breaks is low, then I
would go for applying the patch.

Yet another reason: Probably it is also good to restore it to
IPPROTO_MAX so Linux gets aligned again with other unix-like systems
which provide this definition? Some folks might care of portability in
userspace.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists