netfilter-devel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Phil Oester <kernel@linuxace.com>
To: netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: pablo@netfilter.org, kaber@trash.net
Subject: [PATCH] xtables: Add locking to prevent concurrent instances
Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 13:35:11 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130522173511.GB860@gmail.com> (raw)

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1615 bytes --]

There have been numerous complaints and bug reports over the years when admins
attempt to run more than one instance of iptables simultaneously.  Currently
open bug reports which are related:

325: Parallel execution of the iptables is impossible
758: Retry iptables command on transient failure
764: Doing -Z twice in parallel breaks counters
822: iptables shows negative or other bad packet/byte counts

As Patrick notes in 325:  "Since this has been a problem people keep running
into, I'd suggest to simply add some locking to iptables to catch the most
common case."

I started looking into alternatives to add locking, and of course the most
common/obvious solution is to use a pidfile.  But this has various downsides,
such as if the application is terminated abnormally and the pidfile isn't
cleaned up.  And this also requires a writable filesystem.  Using a UNIX domain
socket file (e.g. in /var/run) has similar issues.

Starting in 2.2, Linux added support for abstract sockets.  These sockets
require no filesystem, and automatically disappear once the application
terminates.  This is the locking solution I chose to implement in xtables-multi.
As an added bonus, since each network namespace has its own socket pool, an
iptables instance running in one namespace will not lock out an iptables
instance running in another namespace.  A filesystem approach would have
to recognize and handle multiple network namespaces.

As long as I was adding locking, I also chose to add a retry loop, with 3
attempts made to grab the lock before giving up.

Phil


Signed-off-by: Phil Oester <kernel@linuxace.com>

[-- Attachment #2: patch-xtables-lock --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 1399 bytes --]

diff --git a/iptables/xtables-multi.c b/iptables/xtables-multi.c
index 8014d5f..9c22a82 100644
--- a/iptables/xtables-multi.c
+++ b/iptables/xtables-multi.c
@@ -1,8 +1,12 @@
 #include <stdio.h>
 #include <stdlib.h>
 #include <string.h>
+#include <sys/socket.h>
+#include <sys/un.h>
+#include <unistd.h>
 #include "xshared.h"
 
+#include "xtables.h"
 #include "xtables-multi.h"
 
 #ifdef ENABLE_IPV4
@@ -35,7 +39,31 @@ static const struct subcommand multi_subcommands[] = {
 	{NULL},
 };
 
+#define XTMSOCKET_NAME "xtables_multi"
+#define XTMSOCKET_LEN 14
+
 int main(int argc, char **argv)
 {
-	return subcmd_main(argc, argv, multi_subcommands);
+	int i = 0, ret, xtm_socket;
+	struct sockaddr_un xtm_addr;
+
+	memset(&xtm_addr, 0, sizeof(xtm_addr));
+	xtm_addr.sun_family = AF_UNIX;
+	strcpy(xtm_addr.sun_path+1, XTMSOCKET_NAME);
+	xtm_socket = socket(AF_UNIX, SOCK_STREAM, 0);
+	/* If we can't even create a socket, just revert to prior (lockless) behavior */
+	if (xtm_socket < 0)
+		return subcmd_main(argc, argv, multi_subcommands);
+
+	do {
+		ret = bind(xtm_socket, (struct sockaddr*)&xtm_addr,
+			   offsetof(struct sockaddr_un, sun_path)+XTMSOCKET_LEN);
+		if (ret == 0)
+			return subcmd_main(argc, argv, multi_subcommands);
+		i++;
+		sleep(1);
+	} while (i <= 2);
+
+	fprintf(stderr, "ERROR: unable to obtain lock - another instance is already running\n");
+	exit(RESOURCE_PROBLEM);
 }

             reply	other threads:[~2013-05-22 17:35 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-05-22 17:35 Phil Oester [this message]
2013-05-22 19:29 ` [PATCH] xtables: Add locking to prevent concurrent instances Patrick McHardy
2013-05-22 20:04   ` Phil Oester
2013-05-22 20:11     ` Patrick McHardy

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20130522173511.GB860@gmail.com \
    --to=kernel@linuxace.com \
    --cc=kaber@trash.net \
    --cc=netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=pablo@netfilter.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).