Re: [PATCH] src: try SO_SNDBUF before SO_SNDBUFFORCE

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> setsockopt() with SO_SNDBUF never fails: it trims the newbuffsiz that is
> specified by net.core.wmem_max

Oh, good catch!  Your revised patch LGTM, and is closer to what was
being done in the immediately proceeding function, mnl_set_rcvbuffer.

However, after thinking about it, I feel we should be checking the
receiver value after setsockopt returns.  If someone is running
e.g. AppArmor, it seems better to me to attempt the non-privileged
operation first, to avoid adding noise in the logs.

Also, I don't think there are any current situations where
SO_SNDBUFFORCE might also trim down the value, but after re-reading the
man page, I'm not sure the contract precludes that in the future.

Attached is a V3 patch for consideration, which also changes the code to
attempt the non-privileged SO_RCVBUF before SO_RCVBUFFORCE.  I defer to
your judgment on which version is actually better; I tested both and
they both work a) in a container where SO_SNDBUFFORCE fails, and b)
outside a container with wmem_max set to a small-ish value where
SO_SNDBUFFORCE is required.
diff --git a/src/mnl.c b/src/mnl.c
index 26f943db..dcc22b82 100644
--- a/src/mnl.c
+++ b/src/mnl.c
@@ -259,10 +259,19 @@ static void mnl_set_sndbuffer(const struct mnl_socket *nl,
 	if (newbuffsiz <= sndnlbuffsiz)
 		return;
 
-	/* Rise sender buffer length to avoid hitting -EMSGSIZE */
-	if (setsockopt(mnl_socket_get_fd(nl), SOL_SOCKET, SO_SNDBUFFORCE,
-		       &newbuffsiz, sizeof(socklen_t)) < 0)
-		return;
+	/* Raise sender buffer length to avoid hitting -EMSGSIZE.  The kernel may
+	 * reduce this to /proc/sys/net/core/wmem_max, see socket(7).
+	 */
+	sndnlbuffsiz = newbuffsiz;
+	if (setsockopt(mnl_socket_get_fd(nl), SOL_SOCKET, SO_SNDBUF,
+		   &sndnlbuffsiz, sizeof(socklen_t)) < 0 || sndnlbuffsiz < newbuffsiz) {
+		/* If SO_SNDBUF failed or the resulting size is still too small, try
+		 * again with SO_SNDBUFFORCE.  This requires CAP_NET_ADMIN.
+		 */
+		sndnlbuffsiz = newbuffsiz;
+		setsockopt(mnl_socket_get_fd(nl), SOL_SOCKET, SO_SNDBUFFORCE,
+		   &sndnlbuffsiz, sizeof(socklen_t));
+	}
 }
 
 static unsigned int nlsndbufsiz;
@@ -280,14 +289,16 @@ static int mnl_set_rcvbuffer(const struct mnl_socket *nl, socklen_t bufsiz)
 	if (nlsndbufsiz >= bufsiz)
 		return 0;
 
-	ret = setsockopt(mnl_socket_get_fd(nl), SOL_SOCKET, SO_RCVBUFFORCE,
-			 &bufsiz, sizeof(socklen_t));
-	if (ret < 0) {
-		/* If this doesn't work, try to reach the system wide maximum
-		 * (or whatever the user requested).
+	nlsndbufsiz = bufsiz;
+	ret = setsockopt(mnl_socket_get_fd(nl), SOL_SOCKET, SO_RCVBUF,
+			 &nlsndbufsiz, sizeof(socklen_t));
+	if (ret < 0 || nlsndbufsiz < bufsiz) {
+		/* If this doesn't work, try again with SO_RCVBUFFORCE.  This requires
+		 * CAP_NET_ADMIN.
 		 */
-		ret = setsockopt(mnl_socket_get_fd(nl), SOL_SOCKET, SO_RCVBUF,
-				 &bufsiz, sizeof(socklen_t));
+		nlsndbufsiz = bufsiz;
+		ret = setsockopt(mnl_socket_get_fd(nl), SOL_SOCKET, SO_RCVBUFFORCE,
+				 &nlsndbufsiz, sizeof(socklen_t));
 	}
 
 	return ret;

-- 
Dave Pifke, dave@xxxxxxxxx

[Index of Archives]     [Netfitler Users]     [Berkeley Packet Filter]     [LARTC]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Forum]

  Powered by Linux