-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 29.9k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
stream: regression since v12.16.3 with TLS sockets backed by non-net.Socket streams #35904
Comments
I confirm that removing the kludge with the |
@ronag, maybe add an |
Remove the kludge that masks the TCP RST on Windows on test-https-truncate That RST is very real, originates from the server and should be investigated Fixes: nodejs#35904
This is my proposal and maybe create a separate issue for the |
On Windows and OSX, the HTTP server will often make the OS send a TCP RST packet by shutting down the socket before all incoming data has been read. Normally, libuv should take care of this (?), but it does not on Windows and OSX Refs: nodejs#35904
The comment here seems mixed up between send and recv buffers. The default behavior on calling `closesocket` is already to do a graceful shutdown (see https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/api/winsock/nf-winsock-closesocket with default l_onoff=zero) if it is the last open handle. The expect behavior if there are pending reads in flight is to send an RST packet, notifying the client that the server connection was destroyed before acknowledging the EOF. Refs: libuv#3035 Refs: nodejs/node#35946 Refs: nodejs/node#35904 Fixes: libuv#3034 PR-URL:
This is an attempt to fix some resource management issues on Windows. Win32 sockets has a bug where it sends an RST packet if there is an outstanding overlapped WSARecv call. We can avoid that by being certain to explicitly cancel our read request first. This also removes some conditional cleanup code, since we might as well clean it up eagerly (like unix). Otherwise, it looks to me like these might cause the accept callbacks to be run after the endgame had freed the memory for them. The comment here seems mixed up between send and recv buffers. The default behavior on calling `closesocket` is already to do a graceful shutdown (see https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/api/winsock/nf-winsock-closesocket with default l_onoff=zero) if it is the last open handle. The expect behavior if there are pending reads in flight is to send an RST packet, notifying the client that the server connection was destroyed before acknowledging the EOF. Refs: libuv#3035 Refs: nodejs/node#35946 Refs: nodejs/node#35904 Fixes: libuv#3034 PR-URL:
The libuv team is working on a correct solution for |
This is an attempt to fix some resource management issues on Windows. Win32 sockets have an issue where it sends an RST packet if there is an outstanding overlapped calls. We can avoid that by being certain to explicitly cancel our read and write requests first. This also removes some conditional cleanup code, since we might as well clean it up eagerly (like unix). Otherwise, it looks to me like these might cause the accept callbacks to be run after the endgame had freed the memory for them. The comment here seems mixed up between send and recv buffers. The default behavior on calling `closesocket` is already to do a graceful shutdown (see https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/api/winsock/nf-winsock-closesocket with default l_onoff=zero) if it is the last open handle. The expected behavior if there are pending reads in flight is to send an RST packet, notifying the client that the server connection was destroyed before acknowledging the EOF. Refs: libuv#3035 Refs: nodejs/node#35946 Refs: nodejs/node#35904 Fixes: libuv#3034 PR-URL: libuv#3036
RFC 5246 section-7.2.1 requires that the implementation must immediately stop using the stream, as it is no longer TLS-encrypted. The stream is permitted to still pump events (and errors) to other users, but those are now unencrypted, so we should not process them here. But therefore, we do not want to stop the underlying stream, as there could be another user of it, but we do remove ourselves as a listener. The section also states that the application must destroy the stream immediately (discarding any pending writes, and sending a close_notify response back), but we leave that to the upper layer of the application here, as it should be sufficient to permit standards compliant usage just to be ignoring read events. Fixes: nodejs/node#35904 Closes: nodejs/node#35946 Co-authored-by: Momtchil Momtchev <momtchil@momtchev.com>
RFC 5246 section-7.2.1 requires that the implementation must immediately stop reading from the stream, as it is no longer TLS-encrypted. The underlying stream is permitted to still pump events (and errors) to other users, but those are now unencrypted, so we should not process them here. But therefore, we do not want to stop the underlying stream, as there could be another user of it, but we do need to remove ourselves as a listener. Per TLS v1.2, we should have also destroy the TLS state entirely here (including the writing side), but this was revised in TLS v1.3 to permit the stream to continue to flush output. There appears to be some inconsistencies in the way nodejs handles ownership of the underlying stream, with `TLS.close()` on the write side also calling shutdown on the underlying stream (thus assuming other users of the underlying stream are not permitted), while receiving EOF on the read side leaves the underlying channel open. These inconsistencies are left for a later person to resolve, if the extra functionality is needed (as described in nodejs#35904). The current goal here is to the fix the occasional CI exceptions depending on the timing of these kernel messages through the TCP stack. Refs: libuv/libuv#3036 Refs: nodejs#35904 Closes: nodejs#35946 Co-authored-by: Momtchil Momtchev <momtchil@momtchev.com>
This is an attempt to fix some resource management issues on Windows. Win32 sockets have an issue where it sends an RST packet if there is an outstanding overlapped calls. We can avoid that by being certain to explicitly cancel our read and write requests first. This also removes some conditional cleanup code, since we might as well clean it up eagerly (like unix). Otherwise, it looks to me like these might cause the accept callbacks to be run after the endgame had freed the memory for them. The comment here seems mixed up between send and recv buffers. The default behavior on calling `closesocket` is already to do a graceful shutdown (see https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/api/winsock/nf-winsock-closesocket with default l_onoff=zero) if it is the last open handle. The expected behavior if there are pending reads in flight is to send an RST packet, notifying the client that the server connection was destroyed before acknowledging the EOF. Additionally, we need to cancel writes explicitly: we need to notify Win32 that it is okay to cancel these writes (so it doesn't also generate an RST packet on the wire). Refs: #3035 Refs: nodejs/node#35946 Refs: nodejs/node#35904 Fixes: #3034 PR-URL: #3036 Reviewed-By: Santiago Gimeno <santiago.gimeno@gmail.com>
RFC 5246 section-7.2.1 requires that the implementation must immediately stop reading from the stream, as it is no longer TLS-encrypted. The underlying stream is permitted to still pump events (and errors) to other users, but those are now unencrypted, so we should not process them here. But therefore, we do not want to stop the underlying stream, as there could be another user of it, but we do need to remove ourselves as a listener. Per TLS v1.2, we should have also destroy the TLS state entirely here (including the writing side), but this was revised in TLS v1.3 to permit the stream to continue to flush output. There appears to be some inconsistencies in the way nodejs handles ownership of the underlying stream, with `TLS.close()` on the write side also calling shutdown on the underlying stream (thus assuming other users of the underlying stream are not permitted), while receiving EOF on the read side leaves the underlying channel open. These inconsistencies are left for a later person to resolve, if the extra functionality is needed (as described in nodejs#35904). The current goal here is to the fix the occasional CI exceptions depending on the timing of these kernel messages through the TCP stack. Refs: libuv/libuv#3036 Refs: nodejs#35904 Closes: nodejs#35946 Co-authored-by: Momtchil Momtchev <momtchil@momtchev.com>
RFC 5246 section-7.2.1 requires that the implementation must immediately stop reading from the stream, as it is no longer TLS-encrypted. The underlying stream is permitted to still pump events (and errors) to other users, but those are now unencrypted, so we should not process them here. But therefore, we do not want to stop the underlying stream, as there could be another user of it, but we do need to remove ourselves as a listener. Per TLS v1.2, we should have also destroy the TLS state entirely here (including the writing side), but this was revised in TLS v1.3 to permit the stream to continue to flush output. There appears to be some inconsistencies in the way nodejs handles ownership of the underlying stream, with `TLS.close()` on the write side also calling shutdown on the underlying stream (thus assuming other users of the underlying stream are not permitted), while receiving EOF on the read side leaves the underlying channel open. These inconsistencies are left for a later person to resolve, if the extra functionality is needed (as described in #35904). The current goal here is to the fix the occasional CI exceptions depending on the timing of these kernel messages through the TCP stack. PR-URL: #36111 Fixes: #35946 Refs: libuv/libuv#3036 Refs: #35904 Co-authored-by: Momtchil Momtchev <momtchil@momtchev.com> Reviewed-By: Robert Nagy <ronagy@icloud.com> Reviewed-By: Matteo Collina <matteo.collina@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com>
RFC 5246 section-7.2.1 requires that the implementation must immediately stop reading from the stream, as it is no longer TLS-encrypted. The underlying stream is permitted to still pump events (and errors) to other users, but those are now unencrypted, so we should not process them here. But therefore, we do not want to stop the underlying stream, as there could be another user of it, but we do need to remove ourselves as a listener. Per TLS v1.2, we should have also destroy the TLS state entirely here (including the writing side), but this was revised in TLS v1.3 to permit the stream to continue to flush output. There appears to be some inconsistencies in the way nodejs handles ownership of the underlying stream, with `TLS.close()` on the write side also calling shutdown on the underlying stream (thus assuming other users of the underlying stream are not permitted), while receiving EOF on the read side leaves the underlying channel open. These inconsistencies are left for a later person to resolve, if the extra functionality is needed (as described in #35904). The current goal here is to the fix the occasional CI exceptions depending on the timing of these kernel messages through the TCP stack. PR-URL: #36111 Fixes: #35946 Refs: libuv/libuv#3036 Refs: #35904 Co-authored-by: Momtchil Momtchev <momtchil@momtchev.com> Reviewed-By: Robert Nagy <ronagy@icloud.com> Reviewed-By: Matteo Collina <matteo.collina@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com>
RFC 5246 section-7.2.1 requires that the implementation must immediately stop reading from the stream, as it is no longer TLS-encrypted. The underlying stream is permitted to still pump events (and errors) to other users, but those are now unencrypted, so we should not process them here. But therefore, we do not want to stop the underlying stream, as there could be another user of it, but we do need to remove ourselves as a listener. Per TLS v1.2, we should have also destroy the TLS state entirely here (including the writing side), but this was revised in TLS v1.3 to permit the stream to continue to flush output. There appears to be some inconsistencies in the way nodejs handles ownership of the underlying stream, with `TLS.close()` on the write side also calling shutdown on the underlying stream (thus assuming other users of the underlying stream are not permitted), while receiving EOF on the read side leaves the underlying channel open. These inconsistencies are left for a later person to resolve, if the extra functionality is needed (as described in #35904). The current goal here is to the fix the occasional CI exceptions depending on the timing of these kernel messages through the TCP stack. PR-URL: #36111 Fixes: #35946 Refs: libuv/libuv#3036 Refs: #35904 Co-authored-by: Momtchil Momtchev <momtchil@momtchev.com> Reviewed-By: Robert Nagy <ronagy@icloud.com> Reviewed-By: Matteo Collina <matteo.collina@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com>
RFC 5246 section-7.2.1 requires that the implementation must immediately stop reading from the stream, as it is no longer TLS-encrypted. The underlying stream is permitted to still pump events (and errors) to other users, but those are now unencrypted, so we should not process them here. But therefore, we do not want to stop the underlying stream, as there could be another user of it, but we do need to remove ourselves as a listener. Per TLS v1.2, we should have also destroy the TLS state entirely here (including the writing side), but this was revised in TLS v1.3 to permit the stream to continue to flush output. There appears to be some inconsistencies in the way nodejs handles ownership of the underlying stream, with `TLS.close()` on the write side also calling shutdown on the underlying stream (thus assuming other users of the underlying stream are not permitted), while receiving EOF on the read side leaves the underlying channel open. These inconsistencies are left for a later person to resolve, if the extra functionality is needed (as described in #35904). The current goal here is to the fix the occasional CI exceptions depending on the timing of these kernel messages through the TCP stack. PR-URL: #36111 Fixes: #35946 Refs: libuv/libuv#3036 Refs: #35904 Co-authored-by: Momtchil Momtchev <momtchil@momtchev.com> Reviewed-By: Robert Nagy <ronagy@icloud.com> Reviewed-By: Matteo Collina <matteo.collina@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com>
RFC 5246 section-7.2.1 requires that the implementation must immediately stop reading from the stream, as it is no longer TLS-encrypted. The underlying stream is permitted to still pump events (and errors) to other users, but those are now unencrypted, so we should not process them here. But therefore, we do not want to stop the underlying stream, as there could be another user of it, but we do need to remove ourselves as a listener. Per TLS v1.2, we should have also destroy the TLS state entirely here (including the writing side), but this was revised in TLS v1.3 to permit the stream to continue to flush output. There appears to be some inconsistencies in the way nodejs handles ownership of the underlying stream, with `TLS.close()` on the write side also calling shutdown on the underlying stream (thus assuming other users of the underlying stream are not permitted), while receiving EOF on the read side leaves the underlying channel open. These inconsistencies are left for a later person to resolve, if the extra functionality is needed (as described in #35904). The current goal here is to the fix the occasional CI exceptions depending on the timing of these kernel messages through the TCP stack. PR-URL: #36111 Fixes: #35946 Refs: libuv/libuv#3036 Refs: #35904 Co-authored-by: Momtchil Momtchev <momtchil@momtchev.com> Reviewed-By: Robert Nagy <ronagy@icloud.com> Reviewed-By: Matteo Collina <matteo.collina@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com>
RFC 5246 section-7.2.1 requires that the implementation must immediately stop reading from the stream, as it is no longer TLS-encrypted. The underlying stream is permitted to still pump events (and errors) to other users, but those are now unencrypted, so we should not process them here. But therefore, we do not want to stop the underlying stream, as there could be another user of it, but we do need to remove ourselves as a listener. Per TLS v1.2, we should have also destroy the TLS state entirely here (including the writing side), but this was revised in TLS v1.3 to permit the stream to continue to flush output. There appears to be some inconsistencies in the way nodejs handles ownership of the underlying stream, with `TLS.close()` on the write side also calling shutdown on the underlying stream (thus assuming other users of the underlying stream are not permitted), while receiving EOF on the read side leaves the underlying channel open. These inconsistencies are left for a later person to resolve, if the extra functionality is needed (as described in nodejs#35904). The current goal here is to the fix the occasional CI exceptions depending on the timing of these kernel messages through the TCP stack. PR-URL: nodejs#36111 Fixes: nodejs#35946 Refs: libuv/libuv#3036 Refs: nodejs#35904 Co-authored-by: Momtchil Momtchev <momtchil@momtchev.com> Reviewed-By: Robert Nagy <ronagy@icloud.com> Reviewed-By: Matteo Collina <matteo.collina@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com>
RFC 5246 section-7.2.1 requires that the implementation must immediately stop reading from the stream, as it is no longer TLS-encrypted. The underlying stream is permitted to still pump events (and errors) to other users, but those are now unencrypted, so we should not process them here. But therefore, we do not want to stop the underlying stream, as there could be another user of it, but we do need to remove ourselves as a listener. Per TLS v1.2, we should have also destroy the TLS state entirely here (including the writing side), but this was revised in TLS v1.3 to permit the stream to continue to flush output. There appears to be some inconsistencies in the way nodejs handles ownership of the underlying stream, with `TLS.close()` on the write side also calling shutdown on the underlying stream (thus assuming other users of the underlying stream are not permitted), while receiving EOF on the read side leaves the underlying channel open. These inconsistencies are left for a later person to resolve, if the extra functionality is needed (as described in #35904). The current goal here is to the fix the occasional CI exceptions depending on the timing of these kernel messages through the TCP stack. PR-URL: #36111 Fixes: #35946 Refs: libuv/libuv#3036 Refs: #35904 Co-authored-by: Momtchil Momtchev <momtchil@momtchev.com> Reviewed-By: Robert Nagy <ronagy@icloud.com> Reviewed-By: Matteo Collina <matteo.collina@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com>
Is it fixed? |
This is an attempt to fix some resource management issues on Windows. Win32 sockets have an issue where it sends an RST packet if there is an outstanding overlapped calls. We can avoid that by being certain to explicitly cancel our read and write requests first. This also removes some conditional cleanup code, since we might as well clean it up eagerly (like unix). Otherwise, it looks to me like these might cause the accept callbacks to be run after the endgame had freed the memory for them. The comment here seems mixed up between send and recv buffers. The default behavior on calling `closesocket` is already to do a graceful shutdown (see https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/api/winsock/nf-winsock-closesocket with default l_onoff=zero) if it is the last open handle. The expected behavior if there are pending reads in flight is to send an RST packet, notifying the client that the server connection was destroyed before acknowledging the EOF. Additionally, we need to cancel writes explicitly: we need to notify Win32 that it is okay to cancel these writes (so it doesn't also generate an RST packet on the wire). Refs: libuv#3035 Refs: nodejs/node#35946 Refs: nodejs/node#35904 Fixes: libuv#3034 PR-URL: libuv#3036 Reviewed-By: Santiago Gimeno <santiago.gimeno@gmail.com>
I'm having trouble following the bookkeeping as well. The description for PR #36111 say that it "closes" PR #35946. And PR #35946 had a description saying that it "fixes" this issue #35904. Does that imply that issue #35904 is now fixed? Then why is it still open? @vtjnash could you clarify? |
From #36111:
The feature requested in the code at the top of this issue has not been implemented in nodejs. I do not know if the nodejs developers want to support this feature (permitting continuing to use using the unencrypted stream after the TLS-encrypted portion is done) or not. Currently nodejs expects to destroy the underlying (unencrypted) stream as soon as the encrypted (TLS) portion ends. |
So if it is a feature request, why is it tagged as a "regression"? |
I have no control over tags |
👍 Thanks very much for clarifying, very helpful! |
What steps will reproduce the bug?
The following code needs a private key and certificate for an HTTPS server.
How often does it reproduce? Is there a required condition?
Every time.
What is the expected behavior?
"stream end" should be displayed
What do you see instead?
Nothing is displayed.
Additional information
This was originally discovered while adding tests for custom HTTP and HTTPS agents for the
ssh2
module. I believe the key here is mainly using a custom stream for the socket passed totls.connect()
. However the regression only became evident once I started settingemitClose: false
because my agent implementation was relying on the'close'
event being emitted to know when to close the underlying ssh connection and emitting'close'
is expected to be handled byssh2
(because the protocol has an explicit close message separate from "EOF").Bisecting reveals ed21d32 as the bad commit. What's happening is that when
TLSSocket
sees that thesocket
option is some custom object/stream and not anet.Socket
instance, it wraps the stream with aJSStreamSocket
.JSStreamSocket
happens to have areadStop()
implementation that simply pauses the socket. Since ed21d32 added a check for this method's existence, it now gets called when the TLS portion ends, which means the underlying/original stream now stays paused and will never emit'end'
like it used to.Judging by the added code comments, it appears that this change was made to appease some error on Windows. I think the original error should be solved in a more compatible way.
/cc @ronag @addaleax @lpinca
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: