mirror of
https://github.com/nodejs/node.git
synced 2024-11-30 15:30:56 +01:00
41d89f611f
Missing functional tests. I'm not sure how to do tests because I don't want to rely on the fact that users have an internet connection.
223 lines
11 KiB
Plaintext
223 lines
11 KiB
Plaintext
Assorted notes about udns (library).
|
|
|
|
UDP-only mode
|
|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
|
|
|
First of all, since udns is (currently) UDP-only, there are some
|
|
shortcomings.
|
|
|
|
It assumes that a reply will fit into a UDP buffer. With adoption of EDNS0,
|
|
and general robustness of IP stacks, in most cases it's not an issue. But
|
|
in some cases there may be problems:
|
|
|
|
- if an RRset is "very large" so it does not fit even in buffer of size
|
|
requested by the library (current default is 4096; some servers limits
|
|
it further), we will not see the reply, or will only see "damaged"
|
|
reply (depending on the server).
|
|
|
|
- many DNS servers ignores EDNS0 option requests. In this case, no matter
|
|
which buffer size udns library will request, such servers reply is limited
|
|
to 512 bytes (standard pre-EDNS0 DNS packet size). (Udns falls back to
|
|
non-EDNO0 query if EDNS0-enabled one received FORMERR or NOTIMPL error).
|
|
|
|
The problem is that with this, udns currently will not consider replies with
|
|
TC (truncation) bit set, and will treat such replies the same way as it
|
|
treats SERVFAIL replies, thus trying next server, or temp-failing the query
|
|
if no more servers to try. In other words, if the reply is really large, or
|
|
if the servers you're using don't support EDNS0, your application will be
|
|
unable to resolve a given name.
|
|
|
|
Yet it's not common situation - in practice, it's very rare.
|
|
|
|
Implementing TCP mode isn't difficult, but it complicates API significantly.
|
|
Currently udns uses only single UDP socket (or - maybe in the future - two,
|
|
see below), but in case of TCP, it will need to open and close sockets for
|
|
TCP connections left and right, and that have to be integrated into an
|
|
application's event loop in an easy and efficient way. Plus all the
|
|
timeouts - different for connect(), write, and several stages of read.
|
|
|
|
IPv6 vs IPv4 usage
|
|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
|
|
|
This is only relevant for nameservers reachable over IPv6, NOT for IPv6
|
|
queries. I.e., if you've IPv6 addresses in 'nameservers' line in your
|
|
/etc/resolv.conf file. Even more: if you have BOTH IPv6 AND IPv4 addresses
|
|
there. Or pass them to udns initialization routines.
|
|
|
|
Since udns uses a single UDP socket to communicate with all nameservers,
|
|
it should support both v4 and v6 communications. Most current platforms
|
|
supports this mode - using PF_INET6 socket and V4MAPPED addresses, i.e,
|
|
"tunnelling" IPv4 inside IPv6. But not all systems supports this. And
|
|
more, it has been said that such mode is deprecated.
|
|
|
|
So, list only IPv4 or only IPv6 addresses, but don't mix them, in your
|
|
/etc/resolv.conf.
|
|
|
|
An alternative is to use two sockets instead of 1 - one for IPv6 and one
|
|
for IPv4. For now I'm not sure if it's worth the complexity - again, of
|
|
the API, not the library itself (but this will not simplify library either).
|
|
|
|
Single socket for all queries
|
|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
|
|
|
Using single UDP socket for sending queries to all nameservers has obvious
|
|
advantages. First it's, again, trivial, simple to use API. And simple
|
|
library too. Also, after sending queries to all nameservers (in case first
|
|
didn't reply in time), we will be able to receive late reply from first
|
|
nameserver and accept it.
|
|
|
|
But this mode has disadvantages too. Most important is that it's much easier
|
|
to send fake reply to us, as the UDP port where we expects the reply to come
|
|
to is constant during the whole lifetime of an application. More secure
|
|
implementations uses random port for every single query. While port number
|
|
(16 bits integer) can not hold much randomness, it's still of some help.
|
|
Ok, udns is a stub resolver, so it expects sorta friendly environment, but
|
|
on LAN it's usually much easier to fire an attack, due to the speed of local
|
|
network, where a bad guy can generate alot of packets in a short time.
|
|
|
|
Choosing of DNS QueryID
|
|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
|
|
|
Currently, udns uses sequential number for query IDs. Which simplifies
|
|
attacks even more (c.f. the previous item about single UDP port), making
|
|
them nearly trivial. The library should use random number for query ID.
|
|
But there's no portable way to get random numbers, even on various flavors
|
|
of Unix. It's possible to use low bits from tv_nsec field returned by
|
|
gettimeofday() (current time, nanoseconds), but I wrote the library in
|
|
a way to avoid making system calls where possible, because many syscalls
|
|
means many context switches and slow processes as a result. Maybe use some
|
|
application-supplied callback to get random values will be a better way,
|
|
defaulting to gettimeofday() method.
|
|
|
|
Note that a single query - even if (re)sent to different nameservers, several
|
|
times (due to no reply received in time), uses the same qID assigned when it
|
|
was first dispatched. So we have: single UDP socket (fixed port number),
|
|
sequential (= trivially predictable) qIDs, and long lifetime of those qIDs.
|
|
This all makes (local) attacks against the library really trivial.
|
|
|
|
See also comments in udns_resolver.c, udns_newid().
|
|
|
|
And note that at least some other stub resolvers out there (like c-ares
|
|
for example) also uses sequential qID.
|
|
|
|
Assumptions about RRs returned
|
|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
|
|
|
Currently udns processes records in the reply it received sequentially.
|
|
This means that order of the records is significant. For example, if
|
|
we asked for foo.bar A, but the server returned that foo.bar is a CNAME
|
|
(alias) for bar.baz, and bar.baz, in turn, has address 1.2.3.4, when
|
|
the CNAME should come first in reply, followed by A. While DNS specs
|
|
does not say anything about order of records - it's an rrSET - unordered, -
|
|
I think an implementation which returns the records in "wrong" order is
|
|
somewhat insane...
|
|
|
|
CNAME recursion
|
|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
|
|
|
Another interesting point is the handling of CNAMEs returned as replies
|
|
to non-CNAME queries. If we asked for foo.bar A, but it's a CNAME, udns
|
|
expects BOTH the CNAME itself and the target DN to be present in the reply.
|
|
In other words, udns DOES NOT RECURSE CNAMES. If we asked for foo.bar A,
|
|
but only record in reply was that foo.bar is a CNAME for bar.baz, udns will
|
|
return no records to an application (NXDOMAIN). Strictly speaking, udns
|
|
should repeat the query asking for bar.baz A, and recurse. But since it's
|
|
stub resolver, recursive resolver should recurse for us instead.
|
|
|
|
It's not very difficult to implement, however. Probably with some (global?)
|
|
flag to en/dis-able the feature. Provided there's some demand for it.
|
|
|
|
To clarify: udns handles CNAME recursion in a single reply packet just fine.
|
|
|
|
Note also that standard gethostbyname() routine does not recurse in this
|
|
situation, too.
|
|
|
|
Error reporting
|
|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
|
|
|
Too many places in the code (various failure paths) sets generic "TEMPFAIL"
|
|
error condition. For example, if no nameserver replied to our query, an
|
|
application will get generic TEMPFAIL, instead of something like TIMEDOUT.
|
|
This probably should be fixed, but most applications don't care about the
|
|
exact reasons of failure - 4 common cases are already too much:
|
|
- query returned some valid data
|
|
- NXDOMAIN
|
|
- valid domain but no data of requested type - =NXDOMAIN in most cases
|
|
- temporary error - this one sometimes (incorrectly!) treated as NXDOMAIN
|
|
by (naive) applications.
|
|
DNS isn't yes/no, it's at least 3 variants, temp err being the 3rd important
|
|
case! And adding more variations for the temp error case is complicating things
|
|
even more - again, from an application writer standpoint. For diagnostics,
|
|
such more specific error cases are of good help.
|
|
|
|
Planned API changes
|
|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
|
|
|
At least one thing I want to change for 0.1 version is a way how queries are
|
|
submitted and how replies are handled.
|
|
|
|
I want to made dns_query object to be owned by an application. So that instead
|
|
of udns library allocating it for the lifetime of query, it will be pre-
|
|
allocated by an application. This simplifies and enhances query submitting
|
|
interface, and complicates it a bit too, in simplest cases.
|
|
|
|
Currently, we have:
|
|
|
|
dns_submit_dn(dn, cls, typ, flags, parse, cbck, data)
|
|
dns_submit_p(name, cls, typ, flags, parse, cbck, data)
|
|
dns_submit_a4(ctx, name, flags, cbck, data)
|
|
|
|
and so on -- with many parameters missed for type-specific cases, but generic
|
|
cases being too complex for most common usage.
|
|
|
|
Instead, with dns_query being owned by an app, we will be able to separately
|
|
set up various parts of the query - domain name (various forms), type&class,
|
|
parser, flags, callback... and even change them at runtime. And we will also
|
|
be able to reuse query structures, instead of allocating/freeing them every
|
|
time. So the whole thing will look something like:
|
|
|
|
q = dns_alloc_query();
|
|
dns_submit(dns_q_flags(dns_q_a4(q, name, cbck), DNS_F_NOSRCH), data);
|
|
|
|
The idea is to have a set of functions accepting struct dns_query* and
|
|
returning it (so the calls can be "nested" like the above), to set up
|
|
relevant parts of the query - specific type of callback, conversion from
|
|
(type-specific) query parameters into a domain name (this is for type-
|
|
specific query initializers), and setting various flags and options and
|
|
type&class things.
|
|
|
|
One example where this is almost essential - if we want to support
|
|
per-query set of nameservers (which isn't at all useless: imagine a
|
|
high-volume mail server, were we want to direct DNSBL queries to a separate
|
|
set of nameservers, and rDNS queries to their own set and so on). Adding
|
|
another argument (set of nameservers to use) to EVERY query submitting
|
|
routine is.. insane. Especially since in 99% cases it will be set to
|
|
default NULL. But with such "nesting" of query initializers, it becomes
|
|
trivial.
|
|
|
|
Another way to do the same is to manipulate query object right after a
|
|
query has been submitted, but before any events processing (during this
|
|
time, query object is allocated and initialized, but no actual network
|
|
packets were sent - it will happen on the next event processing). But
|
|
this way it become impossible to perform syncronous resolver calls, since
|
|
those calls hide query objects they use internally.
|
|
|
|
Speaking of replies handling - the planned change is to stop using dynamic
|
|
memory (malloc) inside the library. That is, instead of allocating a buffer
|
|
for a reply dynamically in a parsing routine (or memdup'ing the raw reply
|
|
packet if no parsing routine is specified), I want udns to return the packet
|
|
buffer it uses internally, and change parsing routines to expect a buffer
|
|
for result. When parsing, a routine will return true amount of memory it
|
|
will need to place the result, regardless of whenever it has enough room
|
|
or not, so that an application can (re)allocate properly sized buffer and
|
|
call a parsing routine again.
|
|
|
|
Another modification I plan to include is to have an ability to work in
|
|
terms of domain names (DNs) as used with on-wire DNS packets, not only
|
|
with asciiz representations of them. For this to work, the above two
|
|
changes (query submission and result passing) have to be completed first
|
|
(esp. the query submission part), so that it will be possible to specify
|
|
some additional query flags (for example) to request domain names instead
|
|
of the text strings, and to allow easy query submissions with either DNs
|
|
or text strings.
|