From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68])
(using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9B96A69CAD
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 7 Dec 2020 11:40:20 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 87A02231B9
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 7 Dec 2020 11:39:50 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com
[212.186.127.180])
(using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id F36DB231AF
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 7 Dec 2020 11:39:49 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id B6CC244E4B
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 7 Dec 2020 11:39:49 +0100 (CET)
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
Stoiko Ivanov <s.ivanov@proxmox.com>
References: <20201204175629.30116-1-s.ivanov@proxmox.com>
<20201204175629.30116-4-s.ivanov@proxmox.com>
From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
Message-ID: <a5649c78-c6e3-5c0f-ccf3-87203eb6a42f@proxmox.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2020 11:39:48 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:84.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/84.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20201204175629.30116-4-s.ivanov@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL -0.070 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
NICE_REPLY_A -0.001 Looks like a legit reply (A)
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED -2.3 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/,
medium trust
SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH http-server v2 3/5] accept-phase: shutdown
socket on early error
X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>,
<mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>,
<mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2020 10:40:20 -0000
On 04.12.20 18:56, Stoiko Ivanov wrote:
> if an error happens before AnyEvent::Handle registers the cleanup
> callback, we should shutdown the socket, when handling it.
>=20
> Co-Authored-by: Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com>
> Signed-off-by: Stoiko Ivanov <s.ivanov@proxmox.com>
> ---
> PVE/APIServer/AnyEvent.pm | 18 ++++++++++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>=20
> diff --git a/PVE/APIServer/AnyEvent.pm b/PVE/APIServer/AnyEvent.pm
> index af2fde8..a679006 100644
> --- a/PVE/APIServer/AnyEvent.pm
> +++ b/PVE/APIServer/AnyEvent.pm
> @@ -1535,6 +1535,11 @@ sub check_host_access {
> =20
> my $cip =3D Net::IP->new($clientip);
> =20
> + if (!$cip) {
> + self->dprint("client IP not parsable: $@");
> + return 0;
> + }
> +
> my $match_allow =3D 0;
> my $match_deny =3D 0;
> =20
> @@ -1567,10 +1572,13 @@ sub check_host_access {
> sub accept_connections {
> my ($self) =3D @_;
> =20
> - my $hdl_err;
> + my ($clientfh, $early_err, $hdl_err);
ah OK, ignore my regards to "$early_err" in the previous comment, I thoug=
ht it was pre-exsiting...
> eval {
> =20
> - while (my $clientfh =3D $self->accept()) {
> + while (1) {
> + $early_err =3D 1;
> + $clientfh =3D $self->accept();
> + last if !$clientfh;
what use has above change? Why not keeping it as is, you can still declar=
e $clientfh
earlier to extend it's scope:
> + while ($clientfh =3D $self->accept()) {
> =20
> my $reqstate =3D { keep_alive =3D> $self->{keep_alive} };
> =20
> @@ -1582,14 +1590,19 @@ sub accept_connections {
> if (my $sin =3D getpeername($clientfh)) {
> my ($pfamily, $pport, $phost) =3D PVE::Tools::unpack_sockaddr_in46($=
sin);
> ($reqstate->{peer_port}, $reqstate->{peer_host}) =3D ($pport, Socke=
t::inet_ntop($pfamily, $phost));
> + } else {
> + shutdown($clientfh, 1);
Do we still plan to send anything? I.e., was `1` (SHUT_RD) used because o=
f caution or
are there more explicit reasons for not using `2` (SHUT_RDWR)? Can be fin=
e, but would
be good to know.
> + next;
> }
> =20
> if (!$self->{trusted_env} && !$self->check_host_access($reqstate-=
>{peer_host})) {
> print "$$: ABORT request from $reqstate->{peer_host} - access denied=
\n" if $self->{debug};
> $reqstate->{log}->{code} =3D 403;
> $self->log_request($reqstate);
> + shutdown($clientfh, 1);
same as above
> next;
> }
> + $early_err =3D 0;
> =20
> $hdl_err =3D 1;
> $self->{conn_count}++;
> @@ -1625,6 +1638,7 @@ sub accept_connections {
> =20
> if (my $err =3D $@) {
> syslog('err', $err);
> + shutdown($clientfh, 1) if $early_err || $hdl_err;
same as above, and maybe we could do with just one such flag variables, r=
educing the combination
matrix a bit.
> if ($hdl_err) {
> if ($self->{conn_count} <=3D 0) {
> my $msg =3D "connection count <=3D 0 not decrementing!\n";
>=20