Re: [RFC PATCH] network: return errors if we know tcp_connect failed

[David Lamparter]

On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 05:54:29PM +0100, Patrick McHardy wrote:
> Am 12.11.2010 17:35, schrieb David Lamparter:
> > On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 05:15:32PM +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> >> Le vendredi 12 novembre 2010 Ã 11:08 -0500, Eric Paris a Ãcrit :
> >>
> >>> 2) What should the generic TCP code (tcp_connect()) do if the skb failed
> >>> to send.  Should it return error codes back up the stack somehow or
> >>> should they continue to be ignored?  Obviously continuing to just ignore
> >>> information we have doesn't make me happy (otherwise I wouldn't have
> >>> started scratching this itch).  But the point about ENOBUFS is well
> >>> taken.  Maybe I should make tcp_connect(), or the caller to
> >>> tcp_connect() more intelligent about specific error codes?
> >>>
> >>> I'm looking for a path forward.  If SELinux is rejecting the SYN packets
> >>> on connect() I want to pass that info to userspace rather than just
> >>> hanging.  What's the best way to accomplish that?
> >>>
> >>
> >> Eric, if you can differentiate a permanent reject, instead of a
> >> temporary one (congestion, or rate limiting, or ENOBUF, or ...), then
> >> yes, you could make tcp_connect() report to user the permanent error,
> >> and ignore the temporary one.
> 
> Indeed. We could even make the NF_DROP return value configurable
> by encoding it in the verdict.

> There is no NF_REJECT.
Ah, sorry, not at home in netfilter, coming from an user perspective here.

> Returning NF_DROP results in -EPERM getting reported back. As Eric
> noticed, this is ignored for SYN packets.

Hrm. But how do you silently drop packets? This seems counterintuitive
or even buggy to me; or at least the netfilter DROP target shouldn't use
this kind of error-reporting drop.

As food for thought I'd like to pose the following rule:
iptables -A OUTPUT -m statistic --mode nth --every 5 -j DROP
which should, to my understanding, still allow the connect to complete,
even if the first SYN got (silently!...) dropped.

Also, i'm *very* sure i was able to trigger a "permission denied" from
either firewall or route rules; weirdly enough i can't get that on my
2.6.35.7 router... (poking older boxes to reproduce it right now)

Just for reference some test results: (heavily cropped)
TL;DR: only tcp-reset and route prohibit work immediately.


+ telnet 74.125.43.105 80
Connected to 74.125.43.105.
+ iptables -I OUTPUT -p tcp -d 74.125.43.105 --dport 80 -j REJECT
  # default w/o reject-with is icmp-port-unreachable
+ telnet 74.125.43.105 80
telnet: connect to address 74.125.43.105: Connection refused
real    0m3.014s
+ iptables -I OUTPUT -p tcp -d 74.125.43.105 --dport 80 -j REJECT --reject-with tcp-reset
+ telnet 74.125.43.105 80
telnet: connect to address 74.125.43.105: Connection refused
real    0m0.007s
+ iptables -I OUTPUT -p tcp -d 74.125.43.105 --dport 80 -j REJECT --reject-with host-prohib
+ telnet 74.125.43.105 80
telnet: connect to address 74.125.43.105: No route to host
real    0m3.010s
+ iptables -I OUTPUT -p tcp -d 74.125.43.105 --dport 80 -j REJECT --reject-with admin-prohib
+ telnet 74.125.43.105 80
telnet: connect to address 74.125.43.105: No route to host
real    0m3.009s
+ iptables -I OUTPUT -p tcp -d 74.125.43.105 --dport 80 -j REJECT --reject-with net-prohib
+ telnet 74.125.43.105 80
telnet: connect to address 74.125.43.105: Network is unreachable
real    0m3.011s
+ iptables -F OUTPUT
+ ip route add prohibit 74.125.43.105
+ ip route flush cache
+ telnet 74.125.43.105 80
telnet: connect to address 74.125.43.105: Network is unreachable
real    0m0.007s


-David

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/