On 12/02/2024 15:13, Stefano Brivio wrote:On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 12:45:00 +0100 Paul Holzinger <pholzing(a)redhat.com> wrote:Yeah I understand that, I guess I just am missing the use case of forwarding large port ranges in general as I don't understand how it is used in practice. As an application inside the VM/container that just binds a port it has no knowledge whenever passt/pasta forwarded the port so if it happens to use one that was skipped because it was already used on the host it just won't get external connections. I guess the answer for that is user error/problem.Hi Stefano, On 09/02/2024 22:09, Stefano Brivio wrote:This really depends on the user. The main usage behind the current behaviour is the "all" forwarding mode, as originally designed for KubeVirt, now available via libvirt in two forms: -t all / -u all, or giving excluded ranges only (from the man page: "Specifying excluded ranges only implies that all other ports are forwarded."). At least this part, specifically, is an established behaviour and we can't break it. But that's not a substantial conflict with what you're asking for Podman: we can keep this behaviour only if the user asks to forward (almost) "all" the ports (in whatever way). And Podman never asks for that, and probably never will.Hi Paul, On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 17:57:05 +0100 Paul Holzinger <pholzing(a)redhat.com> wrote:Ok but this results in a very inconsistent behavior. I argue this is not what a normal user expects at all.Hi all, I found some issues with the pasta port binding logic, it does not correctly handle errors when trying to bind a port range. Let's first bind a port so we can force an error condition it: $ nc -l -p 8080 & $ pasta -t 8080 true Failed to bind any port for '-t 8080', exiting <-- fails as expected $ pasta -t 8081 -t 8080 true Failed to bind any port for '-t 8080', exiting <-- here it also fails correctly $ pasta -t 8080-8081 true <-- no error even though pasta could not bind 8080This is actually intended: it only fails if it can't bind *any* port in a given range, so that users don't have to explicitly exclude ports from ranges in case some are already taken, knowingly or not. That's why the error message says "any port".It is not even documented in the man page.Right, yes, we'll need to describe it.I see, but again, if just port 8005 is not available, you might say that having pasta succeed is a security concern because somebody can "steal" the port, or that having pasta fail is a nuisance because the user probably just wanted to forward the remaining 1000 ports, and graceful degradation would be desirable instead. It's pretty impossible to draw a line in a different way that's not considered inconsistent or inconvenient by some. So:For two ports it probably makes no sense, but for larger ranges excluding dozens of ports can get quite annoying for the user. And warnings on failed bind() calls could get quite noisy, too.At the same time this can result in a lot of unexpected problems for users as it just hides potential problems, assuming 8001-9000 are already in use then -t 8000-9000 would work and then one might reasonably expect that if they connect to any of the given ports they talk to the pasta namespace and not something else, this could be a security concern. I would say in such case yes I want to see a logged error for each individual port.I am fine with an opt in option, it just means that I will need to wait a bit until the passt package landed in fedora and our CI images before I can implement it. Retrying without that option is a good idea but I rather just make a clean requirement of version xxx to not complicate the podman code. We are in process of finalizing Podman 5.0 right now so if such option could be implemented within the next 2-3 weeks that would be great and I can add a note the we require passt version XXX now as part of 5.0 and make it the packagers responsibility to provide that....would probing for the option be a possibility? That is, run 'pasta --strict-bind', and if it fails, log a warning and continue without the option. If that's too cumbersome, then I would skip the new option and change it to simply fail if we can't bind a single port (and report the single error right away), unless the user requests to forward "almost all" the ports, in which case we could probably warn() with a list of the ports that we couldn't bind.If it's a problem for Podman, I can think of two solutions. One would be an option such as --strict-bind or suchlike (better names warmly welcome).It is a big problem for podman as it does not do what users want us to do. Also, because podman is smart enough to combine several ports into ranges internally for performance reasons, something like -p 80:80 -p 81:81 is always a range for podman thus there is no way for podman users to avoid hitting this problem. An opt-in option works for me but then we need to bump the minimum pasta requirement version for podman which is a bit annoying as I would need to wait until the versions lands in our CI.Reading [1] below, this string is considered confusing too, even though I feel that hiding it conceptually clashes with the rationale of your very request. That is, one might argue that the user wanted IPv6 too, but it's not working, and we should tell the user. Anyway, we can change it to info() and run pasta with -q / --quiet. Would that help?Another idea would be that the back-end in Podman passes ranges as single ports... but then the command line might explode and that's not ideal for users, either. I'd rather favour the extra option.Yeah that works but for large ranges it would not be as performant and there is the risk of hitting ARG_MAX (although I understand it is unlikely to be real problem given one would need to give millions of ports to hit it).I am fine with this, exit on the first error is what all our other network tools do. But the behavior also exists for even a single port today, for reference the error messages today: rootlessport: $ podman run -p 53:53 --rm quay.io/libpod/testimage:20221018 Error: rootlessport cannot expose privileged port 53, you can add 'net.ipv4.ip_unprivileged_port_start=53' to /etc/sysctl.conf (currently 1024), or choose a larger port number (>= 1024): listen tcp 0.0.0.0:53: bind: permission denied $ podman run -p 8000:8000 --network slirp4netns --rm quay.io/libpod/testimage:20221018 Error: rootlessport listen tcp 0.0.0.0:8000: bind: address already in use pasta: $ podman run -p 53:53 --network pasta --rm quay.io/libpod/testimage:20221018 Error: pasta failed with exit code 1: No external routable interface for IPv6Also besides this I find the error message less than ideal. It missing the errno from the bind syscall so important context gets lost (i.e. Address already in use vs Permission denied).The problem is that we might fail to bind multiple ports, so there isn't necessarily a single bind() error. But if we go with --strict-bind, we could report the first error (including return code from the system call) and exit right away.Failed to bind any port for '-t 53-53:53-53', exiting $ podman run -p 8000:8000 --network pasta --rm quay.io/libpod/testimage:20221018 Error: pasta failed with exit code 1: No external routable interface for IPv6 Failed to bind any port for '-t 8000-8000:8000-8000', exiting I think the answer of what is more helpful to users is obvious and that isn't just my opinion[1].Sure, I understand, especially in case of a single port. This is just the first time somebody reports that. >> Let me know if any of this would address your problem, I can write a >> patch in the next days in case (or feel free to submit one). > [1] https://github.com/containers/podman/pull/21563#issuecomment-1937024642