[RFR] 8184328: JDK8u131 socketRead0 hang at SSL read

Xuelei Fan xuelei.fan at oracle.com
Wed Sep 13 23:09:08 UTC 2017


It's a little bit complicated for layered SSL connections.  Application 
can build a SSL connection on existing socket (we call it layered SSL 
connections).  The problem scenarios make look like:
1. open a socket for applications.
2. established a SSL connection on the existing socket.
3. close the SSL connection, but leaving data in the socket.
4. establish another SSL connection on the socket, as the existing data 
in the socket, the connection cannot be established.
5. establish another app connection on the socket, as the existing data 
in the socket, the connection cannot be established.
....

Timeout happens even on very high speed network. If a timeout happens 
and the SSL connection is not closed gracefully, and then the following 
applications breaks.  IMHO, we need to take care of the case.

Xuelei

On 9/13/2017 1:06 PM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
> Xuelei,
> 
> Without diving deeper into this issue, Rob’s suggested approach seems reasonable to me, and better than existing out-of-the-box behaviour. I’m not sure what issues you are thinking of, with using the read timeout in combination with a retry mechanism, in this manner? If the network is so slow, surely there will be other issues with connecting and reading, why is closing any different.
> 
> -Chris.
> 
>> On 13 Sep 2017, at 16:52, Rob McKenna <rob.mckenna at oracle.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Xuelei,
>>
>> This behaviour is already exposed via the autoclose boolean in:
>>
>> https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/api/javax/net/ssl/SSLSocketFactory.html#createSocket-java.net.Socket-java.io.InputStream-boolean-
>>
>> My position would be that allowing 5 retries allows us to say with some
>> confidence that we're not going to get a close_notify from the server.
>> If this is the case I think its reasonable to close the connection.
>>
>> W.r.t. a separate timeout, the underlying mechanics of a close already
>> depend on the readTimeout in this situation. (waiting on a close_notify
>> requires performing a read so the read timeout makes sense in this
>> context) I'm happy to alter that but I think that the combination of
>> a timeout and a retry count is straightforward and lower impact.
>>
>> In my opinion the default behaviour of potentially hanging indefinitely
>> is worse than the alternative here. (bearing in mind that we are closing
>> the underlying socket)
>>
>> I'll file a CSR as soon as we settle on the direction this fix will
>> take.
>>
>>     -Rob
>>
>> On 13/09/17 05:52, Xuelei Fan wrote:
>>> In theory, there are intermittent compatibility problems as this update may
>>> not close the SSL connection over the existing socket layer gracefully, even
>>> for high speed networking environments, while the underlying socket is
>>> alive.  The impact could be serious in some environment.
>>>
>>> For safe, I may suggest turn this countermeasure off by default.  And
>>> providing options to turn on this countermeasure:
>>> 1. Close the SSL connection gracefully by default; or
>>> 2. Close the SSL connection after a timeout.
>>>
>>> It's hardly to say 5 times receiving timeout is better/safer than timeout
>>> once in this context.  As you have already had a system property to control,
>>> you may be able to use options other than the customized socket receiving
>>> timeout, so that the closing timeout is not mixed/confused/dependent on/with
>>> the receiving timeout.
>>>
>>> Put all together:
>>> 1. define a closing timeout, for example "jdk.tls.waitForClose".
>>> 2. the property default value is zero, no behavior changes.
>>> 3. applications can set positive milliseconds value for the property. The
>>> SSL connection will be closed in the set milliseconds (or about the maximum
>>> value between SO_TIMEOUT and closing timeout), the connection is not grant
>>> to be gracefully.
>>>
>>> What do you think?
>>>
>>> BTW, please file a CSR as this update is introducing an external system
>>> property.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Xuelei
>>>
>>> On 9/11/2017 3:29 PM, Rob McKenna wrote:
>>>> Hi folks,
>>>>
>>>> In high latency environments a client SSLSocket with autoClose set to false
>>>> can hang indefinitely if it does not correctly recieve a close_notify
>>>> from the server.
>>>>
>>>> In order to rectify this situation I would like to suggest that we
>>>> implement an integer JDK property (jdk.tls.closeRetries) which instructs
>>>> waitForClose to attempt the close no more times than the value of the
>>>> property. I would also suggest that 5 is a reasonable default.
>>>>
>>>> Note: each attempt times out based on the value of
>>>> Socket.setSoTimeout(int timeout).
>>>>
>>>> Also, the behaviour here is similar to that of waitForClose() when
>>>> autoClose is set to true, less the retries.
>>>>
>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~robm/8184328/webrev.01/
>>>>
>>>>     -Rob
>>>>
> 


More information about the security-dev mailing list