[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2f823095-af60-b5d7-b828-d92981e05973@maxsi.org>
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 17:16:00 +0100
From: Jonas 'Sortie' Termansen <sortie@...si.org>
To: Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>, oss-security@...ts.openwall.com,
John Haxby <john.haxby@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: Race condition between UDP bind(2) and connect(2)
delivers wrong datagrams
Hi Florian & John,
(Please to/cc me on responses as I am not subscribed)
Thank you for your thoughtful replies, you raise some good points. I had
thought about them previously and should have mentioned them in my original
email.
My argument is as follows:
1) Let us first agree on how to interpret what POSIX mandates and how to
interpret the documentation for existing systems, as this is a
prerequisite for coming to an agreement.
2) A disconnect between the promises made by documentation/standards and
what implementations actually do can be enough to be a security problem.
3) The behavior of existing implementations is not useful, and the
standardized behavior (and arguably documented behavior) is useful.
4) We should fix the implementations to filter the receive queue on connect
and ideally clarify the intended behavior in all the existing
documentation.
On 11/06/2017 07:42 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> The alternative is that these systems are handling the situation
> correctly.
>
> [...]
>
> Whatever the exact wording used is, the intent of POSIX is to describe
> the BSD sockets API behavior. If the API does something else, that's a
> POSIX bug.
Absolutely, if the standard mdanated one behavior, and if all the
implementations did something else and documented that they did so, it would
be a bug in the standard that should be fixed.
This issue is not that case because Darwin[1], DragonFly[2], FreeBSD[3],
GNU/Hurd (though by importing Linux man pages), Linux[4], NetBSD[5], and
OpenBSD[6] all document behavior compatible with POSIX[7].
POSIX 2008 (2016 edition) says[7]:
"For SOCK_DGRAM sockets, the peer address identifies where all datagrams
are sent on subsequent send() functions, and limits the remote sender
for subsequent recv() functions."
POSIX talks about the behavior of the recv() functions here, that they limit
the remote sender subsequent to the connect(2) call. It is clearly not
allowing the behavior I'm seeing in all the affected operating systems. Yes,
this text is based on the documentation of existing systems, so let's see
what the BSD systems all say:
Darwin[1], DragonFly[2], FreeBSD[3], NetBSD[5], OpenBSD[6] says:
"If it is of type SOCK_DGRAM, this call specifies the peer with which
the socket is to be associated; this address is that to which datagrams
are to be sent, and the only address from which datagrams are to be
received."
This language is the same in all these systems and I can track it to
2.10 BSD[8].
The key ambiguity here is what "are to be received" means. Arguably, it
means when the kernel socket receives the datagram and adds it to the
receive queue. Alternatively, it refers to the act of using one of the
recv() functions. I think it's likely the author did not consider the bind +
connect race condition.
Linux[4] and GNU/Hurd says:
"If the socket sockfd is of type SOCK_DGRAM, then addr is the address to
which datagrams are sent by default, and the only address from which
datagrams are received."
The language is different here, though it shares the same language about
receiving datagrams.
If we interpret 'receive' in the BSD & Linux documentation to mean the act
of using a recv() function, then there is a disconnect between the
documentation and the actual implementations. If we interpret 'receive' as
the act of the kernel receiving the datagram and adding it to the receive
queue, then the documentation is correct, but is negligent by failing to
mention the subtle race condition. In either case, application programmers
do not know they need to either empty the receive after connect(2) or that
they need to check the sender using recvfrom(2) / recvmsg(2).
If the documentation leads developers to believe connect(2) will cause any
subsequent recv() call to only receive from the connected remote, and it is
not the case, then that is a security problem.
The advantage of connect(2)'ing a UDP socket is that a default address is
set and now send(2), write(2), and writev(2) can be used as well, which
makes communicating with a single peer more convenient. Likewise the ability
to limit incoming packets to a single peer is also convenient and lets you
receive using recv(2), read(2), readv(2) without worrying about the sender
address. However, to use the sender check advantage right now, we need to
empty the receive queue after the connect(2). This is error prone, as the
programmer needs to know to do this (it's not documented anywhere). I don't
believe it's useful at all that the receive queue remains unfiltered
following a connect(2), while it is useful to have connect(2) provide the
guarantee that any subsequent recv() function will return only datagrams
from the remote peer.
That is, I believe the behavior described by POSIX is superior to what all
the implementations actually do.
I see two internally consistent ways we could resolve this problem:
1) Implement the behavior described by POSIX by having connect(2) on an UDP
socket filter the receive queue, and possibly updating the connect(2)
documentation of every OS to be a little less ambiguous and say the same
as POSIX. Software that relied on bind+connect not having a race
condition will be secured by the kernel fix.
2) Declare the existing behavior desirable, add a caveats section to every
connect(2) manual page describing this pitfall and the need to empty the
receive queue after connect(2). File a POSIX bug and have the mandated
behavior changed in the next POSIX Technical Corrigendum or next major
update. We audit software on every operating system for this flaw and
ensure they properly empty the receive queue.
My preference is 1) because I believe the receive queue filtering behavior
to be more useful. It also automatically closes the race condition in any
software that use bind+connect and doesn't empty the receive queue.
On 11/06/2017 07:42 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> It's often possible to simply drain all pending datagrams after the
> connect call because the application knows that all packets received at
> this points must be garbage and not intended for it to process.
Yep. The application programmer would of course need to know to do this.
The pending data might not only be datagrams, but could also be synchronous
errors that need to be ignored.
On 11/06/2017 07:42 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> I've not been able to think of / find any other software that bind(2)
>> a UDP
>> socket to an address and then use connect(2) to fix a particular peer,
>> but
>> I don't have time to do a thorough search. Please let me know if you can
>> think of any.
>
> OpenJDK had a similar issue because it supported socket disconnect.
Interesting. Do you have have any reference on this, I would love to read
more about it.
On 11/07/2017 14:20 PM, John Haxby wrote:
> I know that that's not Posix, but it underlines the interesting question
> of what happens to packets that have already been received that have the
> "wrong" source address?
POSIX does specify what happens in connect(), any subsequent recv()
function (not the act of the kernel receiving the datagram) will limit the
remote sender. POSIX's focus is on the recv() functions, which does cover
anything already in the receive queue.
On 11/07/2017 14:20 PM, John Haxby wrote:
> You might hope that the kernel will just flush any datagrams that the
> application has picked up. What happens, though, if the program is
> working its way through datagrams that it has received or is receiving
> from the kernel? That's a rhetorical question -- it should, of course,
> discard packets it is (no longer) interested in.
>
> While there's plenty of scope for programs to get this wrong, I don't
> think the kernel is under any obligation to attempt to flush anything
> either from a standards point of view or from a real-world
> implementation point of view.
POSIX does obligate the kernel to limit the remote sender for subsequent
recv() functions. While delivering wrong datagrams does not harm the kernel
itself, it is good if the kernel can provide user-space with useful
guarantees. In this case, the documentation suggests a guarantee exists when
it actually doesn't, which is bad.
Jonas
[1] https://developer.apple.com/legacy/library/documentation/Darwin/Reference/ManPages/man2/connect.2.html
[2] https://leaf.dragonflybsd.org/cgi/web-man?command=connect§ion=2
[3] https://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=connect&sektion=2
[4] http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/connect.2.html
[5] http://netbsd.gw.com/cgi-bin/man-cgi?connect+2+NetBSD-current
[6[ https://man.openbsd.org/connect.2
[7] http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/connect.html
[8] https://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=connect&apropos=0&sektion=2&manpath=2.10+BSD&arch=default&format=html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Please check out the
Open Source Software Security Wiki, which is counterpart to this
mailing list.
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
