I am building a p2p application in which every peer can maintain a connection with multiple other peers.
Maintaining a connection is easy with TCP. I have a server listening on a specific port on every node. Whenver peerA wants to connect to peerB, it creates a socket and makes a connect call to the listening port of peerB. This creates a new socket on which both the peers can do all their subsequent conversation on.
I want to simulate the same concept of workflow in UDP. Something similar to this question The traditional way of conversing with multiple peers on UDP from what I found is that every peer is listening on a predefined port. Every sendTo call specifies the ip and port of the peer we want to connect to and on the receiver side, we use recvFrom to handle it based on which peer it is coming from (e.g. passing the msg to a thread which handles messages from that specific peer).
However, I wanted to know if there is any way of doing the same without the need to demultiplex at the receiver. I found the SO_REUSEPORT flag can be used to implement this http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man7/socket.7.html
https://lwn.net/Articles/542629/.
Basically, SO_REUSEPORT allows multiple sockets call bind on the same port. So, I bind a server port similarly as before. However, when I get a connection from a new peer, I bind a new socket to the same port and call connect on the sender's address. Then I pass this new socket to a thread which listens to messages from the sender.
makeListeningSocket ip port = do
sock <- socket ip port
setSocketOption sock ReusePort 1
bind sock
return sock
runUDPServer sock = do
(receivedMessage, peerAddr) <- recvFrom sock 4096
newSock <- makeListeningSocket "0.0.0.0" 3001
connect newSock peerAddr
async (readMessagesFromSock newSock)
runUDPServer sock
I was able to make this approach work. However, SO_REUSEPORT option doesn't seem to be created with this specific use case in mind. So my question is, is there anything horribly wrong with using SO_REUSEPORT in this manner which I am not able to see? Are there better ways of doing this?
Related
I'm studying socket programming, and the server socket accept() is confusing me. I wrote two scenarios for server socket accept(), please take a look:
When the server socket does accept(), it creates a new (client) socket that is bound to a port that is different from the port the server socket is bound. So socket communication is done via newly bound port, and the server socket (for accept() only) is waiting for another client connection on the originally bound port.
I think this is not quite correct, because (1) a port matches to a single process and (2) socket accept is inside-process matter and single process can have multiple sockets. So thought of a second scenario, based on some of stackoverflow answers:
When a server socket does accept(), it creates a new (client) socket that is not bound to any specific port. When a client communicates with the server, it uses the port that is bound to the server socket (who accept()s connections) and which client socket to actually communicate is resolved by (sourceIP, sourcePort, destIP, destPort) tuple from TCP header(?) at Transmission level (this is also suspicious because I thought socket is somewhat of an application-level object)
This scenario also raises some questions. If the socket communications still use server socket's port, i.e. client sends some messages to the server socket port, doesn't it use the server socket's backlog queue? I mean, how can messages from a client be distinguished between connect() and read() or write()? And how can they be resolved to each client socket in the server, without any port binding?
If one of my scenarios is correct, would that answer to the questions following? Or perhaps, both of my scenarios are wrong. I'd be very thankful if you could guide me to correct answers, or at least, towards some relevant texts to study.
When you create a socket and do a bind on that socket and then a listen, what you have is what is called a listening socket.
When a connection is establised this socket is basically cloned to a new socket, and this socket is called the servicing socket the port to which it bound is still the same as the original port.
But there is an important distinction between this socket and the listening socket from before. Namely it is part of a socket pair.
It is the socket pair that uniquely identifies the connection. so as there are 2 sockets in the picture for a socket pair, there are 2 IP adresses and 2 ports for both ends of the TCP communication channel. During the cloning of the servicing socket, the TCP kernel will allocate what is called a TCB and in it it will store those 2 IP# and 2 ports. The TCB also contains the socket number that belongs to the TCB.
Each time a TCP segment comes in , the TCP header is checked and whether or not it is a SYN, for a SYN you would have connection establishment so that you passed already, but then the kernel is going through its list of listening sockets. If it is a normal TCP packet, not a SYN, both port numbers are in the TCP header and the IP# are part of the IP header, so using this information the kernel is able to find the TCP that belongs to this TCP connection. (For a SYN, this information is also there, but as I said, for a SYN you have to process only the listening sockets)
That is in a nutshell how it works.
This information can be found in UNIX Network Programming: the sockets networking API. In there the link to the sockets is described whereas in other reference material it is usually not described that much in detail, rather the nitty grits of TCP are usually highlighted.
When server socket do accept(), it creates a new (client) socket that is bind to port that is different from the port server socket is bind. So socket communication is done via newly bind port, and server socket (for accept() only) is waiting for another client connection on originally bind port.
No.
I think this is not quite proper answer
It is a wrong answer.
because (1) port matches to a single process
That doesn't mean anything relevant.
and (2) socket accept is inside-process matters
Nor does that. It doesn't appear to mean anything at all actually.
and single process can have multiple sockets.
That's true but it doesn't have any bearing on why your answer is wrong. The reason your answer is wrong is because no second port is used.
When server socket do accept(), it creates a new (client) socket that is not bind to any specific port
No. It creates a second socket that inherits everything from the server socket: port number, buffer sizes, socket options, ... everything except the file descriptor and the LISTENING state, and maybe I forgot something else. It then sets the remote IP:port of the socket to that of the client and puts the socket into ESTABLISHED state.
and when client communicates with the server
The client has already communicated with the server. That's why we are creating this socket.
it uses the port that is bind to server socket (who accept()s connections) and which client socket to actually communicate is resolved by (sourceIP, sourcePort, destIP, destPort) tuple from TCP header(?) at Transmission level
This has already happened.
This is also suspicious because I thought socket is somewhat application-level object)
No it isn't. A socket is a kernel-level object with an application-level file descriptor to identity it.
If the socket communications still use server socket's port, i.e. client sends some messages to server socket port, doesn't it uses server socket's backlog queue?
No. The backlog queue is for incoming connect requests, not for data. Incoming data goes into the socket receive buffer.
I mean, how can messages from client be distinguished between connect() and read() or write()?
Because a connect() request sets special bits in the TCP header. The final part of it can be combined with data.
And how can they be resolved to each client sockets in server, WITHOUT any port binding?
Port binding happens the moment the socket is created in the call to accept(). You invented this difficulty yourself. It isn't real.
If one of my scenario is correct, would answer to the questions following?
Neither of them is correct.
Or possibly I'm making two wrong scenarios, so it would be very thankful for you to provide right answers, or at least some relevant texts to study.
Surely you already have relevant texts to study? If you don't, you should read RFC 793 or W.R. Stevens, TCP/IP Illustrated, volume I, relevant chapters. You have several major misunderstandings here.
From the Linux programmer's manual, as found via man 2 accept. Link
The accept() system call is used with connection-based socket
types (SOCK_STREAM, SOCK_SEQPACKET). It extracts the first connection
request on the queue of pending connections for the listening socket,
sockfd, creates a new connected socket, and returns a new file
descriptor referring to that socket. The newly created socket is not
in the listening state. The original socket sockfd is unaffected by
this call.
So what happens is that you have a listening TCP socket. Someone requests to connect().
You then call accept(). The old listening socket remains in listening mode, while a new socket is created in connected mode. Port is the original listening port.
That does not interfere with the listening socket, because the new socket does not listen for incoming connections.
I'm studying socket programming in C. In TCP communication, a classical situation is that once the server accept() a connect() request from a client, it will fork a new process to handle this communication. Then the child process will use another port to communicate with the client. My question is, how does the server inform the client that it will use another port rather than the original one to do the subsequent communication? Which field in the TCP header and which phase of the handshake can reflect the port change?
For example, process PA on server A is listening to its port 80. Now process PB on client B wants to connect to A's port 80. Once PA accepts PB's connecting request, it will fork a new process PA1 to handle the communication with PB. Am I right till now? Next, will PA1 still use port 80 or another port such as 1234 to communication with PB? If it still uses 80, how can the server A distribute PB's communication to PA1? If it uses another port like 1234, how will the server A inform PB to use 1234 for the subsequent communication?
A TCP connection is uniquely identified by the tuple (source ip, source port, destination ip, destinatin port). These tuple is used by OS to "bind" the TCP connection to a process, meaning to know which process the OS should deliver the TCP package to.
When server socket accepts the TCP connection and fork, that process inherits the original process so it effectively take up the binding of the TCP connection to this newly forked process. The client in the remote machine does not know and does not need to know such thing happens. The whole network keeps seeing the same thing, the package of the same tuple flow through the network.
At this time, the original process will keep listening to new TCP connection. When new TCP connection request arrive, even it is from the same previous machine, the port must be different. In OS's perspective it is a different tuple, therefore it can distinguish the TCP pcakge and deliver to the right process.
You may ask why the client from the remote machine knows it has to use another port to initiate a new connection. This is simply because the client OS knows (or informed by the socket library) that this process is creating a separate new connection. OS will assign another unique port number to the process. That's how it is possible for multiple processes communicating to the same server port without message mess up.
To put it short, the operation of accept and fork in server is just a kind of transferring the ownership of a TCP connection binding to another process. Nothing change in the server port used in this communication.
In TCP communication, a classical situation is that once the server accept() a connect() request from a client, it will fork a new process to handle this communication.
Correct, or start a thread.
Then the child process will use another port to communicate with the client.
No. It will use the same port, via the accepted socket, inherited in the case of a child process.
My question is, how does the server inform the client that it will use another port rather than the original one to do the subsequent communication?
It doesn't, because this isn't the 'classical situation'.
Which field in the TCP header and which phase of the handshake can reflect the port change?
None. It doesn't happen that way. It would be a waste of a port.
For example, process PA on server A is listening to its port 80. Now process PB on client B wants to connect to A's port 80. Once PA accepts PB's connecting request, it will fork a new process PA1 to handle the communication with PB. Am I right till now?
Yes.
Next, will PA1 still use port 80 or another port such as 1234 to communication with PB?
Port 80.
If it still uses 80, how can the server A distribute PB's communication to PA1?
By inheritance of the accepted socket.
If it uses another port like 1234, how will the server A inform PB to use 1234 for the subsequent communication?
Doesn't happen.
The client chooses this port, not the server. The client will choose a port that's not already in use on that particular machine, and use that port to tell its connections apart (just as the server does).
For example say the client has IP address 1.2.3.4 and the server has IP address 4.3.2.1 and listens on port 80. If the client has two connections to that server and port, how will it tell them apart? Simple -- it assigns a different source port to each one. Say one gets port 50001 and one gets port 50002, then the two connections are:
1.2.3.4:50001 -> 4.3.2.1:80
and
1.2.3.4:50002 -> 4.3.2.1:80
The server knows these ports because it gets them from the TCP SYN packets sent from the client to the server. So the client tells the server, not the other way around.
I have looked up in BSD code but got lost somewhere :(
the reason I want to check is this:
TCP RFC (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc793.txt) sec 2.7 states:
"To provide for unique addresses within each TCP, we concatenate an internet address identifying the TCP with a port identifier to create a socket which will be unique throughout all networks connected together. A connection is fully specified by the pair of sockets at the ends."
Does this mean: socket = local (ip + port) ?
If yes, then the accept function of Unix returns a new socket descriptor. Will it mean that a new socket is created (in turn a new port is created) for responding to client requests?
PS: I am a novice in network programming.
[UPDATE] I understood what I read # How does the socket API accept() function work?.
My only doubt is: if socket = (local port +local ip), then a new socket would mean a new port for the same IP. going by this logic, accept returns a new socket (thus a new port is created). so all sending should occur through this new port.
Is what I understand here correct?
You are mostly correct. When you accept(), a new socket is created and the listening socket stays open to allow more incoming connections but the new socket uses the same local port number as the listening socket.
A connection is defined by a 5-tuple: protocol, local-addr, local-port, remote-addr, remote-port.
Therefore, each accepted connection is unique even though they all share the same local port number because the remote ip/port is always different. The listening socket has no remote ip/port and so is also unique.
i have a few basic questions:
1.A socket is represented by a protocol, a local ip, local port, remote ip and remote port. Suppose such a connection exists between a client and a server. Now when i bind another client to same local port and ip, it got bound(i used SO_REUSEADDR) but connect operation by second client to the same remote ip and port failed.So, is there no way a third process can share the same socket?
2.When we call listen() on a socket bound to a local port and ip, it listens for connections. When a client connects, it creates a socket (say A). It completes 3 way handshake and then starts a different socket(say B) and also deletes the socket A (Source) .The new client is taken care of by the new socket B. So, what kind of a socket represents a listening socket i.e. what is the remote ip and port and is socket A different than that socket or just addition of remote ip and port to listening socket forms A?
3.I read that SO_REUSEADDR can establish a listening socket on a port if there is no socket listening on that port and ip and all sockets on that port and ip have SO_REUSEADDR option set.But then i also came across a text which said if a client is bound to a port and ip, another client can't bind to it(even if SO_REUSEADDR is used) unless the first client successfully calls connect(). There was no listening socket(it is a client so we there is no call to connect()) on that port and ip in this example. So, why isn't another client allowed?
Thanks in advance.
Correct: there is no way to create two different sockets with the same protocol, local port, local address, remote port, and remote address. There would be nothing to tell which packets belonged to which socket!
A listening socket does not have a remote address and remote port. That's OK, because there are no packets on the wire associated with this socket (yet). Actually, all sockets start out with neither a local nor remote address or port. These properties are only assigned later when bind() (for local) and connect()/accept() (for remote) are called.
Until you call connect() or listen() on a socket, there isn't any different between a server (listening) or client socket. They're the same thing. So it would be more correct here to say that no two sockets are allowed to share the same protocol, local address, and local port if neither has a remote address or port.
This isn't a problem in practice though, because you usually don't call bind() on a client socket, which means there is an implicit bind() to an ephemeral port at connect() time. These typical client sockets can't conflict with a listening socket because they go from having no addresses associated with them to having both local and remote addresses associated with them, skipping the state where they have only a local one.
I have an FPGA device with which my code needs to talk. The protocol is as follows:
I send a single non-zero byte (UDP) to turn on a feature. The FPGA board then begins spewing data on the port from which I sent.
Do you see my dilemma? I know which port I sent the message to, but I do not know from which port I sent (is this port not typically chosen automatically by the OS?).
My best guess for what I'm supposed to do is create a socket with the destination IP and port number and then reuse the socket for receiving. If I do so, will it already be set up to listen on the port from which I sent the original message?
Also, for your information, variations of this code will be written in Python and C#. I can look up specific API's as both follow the BSD socket model.
This is exactly what connect(2) and getsockname(2) are for. As a bonus for connecting the UDP socket you will not have to specify the destination address/port on each send, you will be able to discover unavailable destination port (the ICMP reply from the target will manifest as error on the next send instead of being dropped), and your OS will not have to implicitly connect and disconnect the UDP socket on each send saving some cycles.
You can bind a socket to a specific port, check man bind
you can bind the socket to get the desired port.
The only problem with doing that is that you won't be able to run more then one instance of your program at a time on a computer.
You're using UDP to send/receive data. Simply create a new UDP socket and bind to your desired interface / port. Then instruct your FPGA program to send UDP packets back to the port you bound to. UDP does not require you to listen/set up connections. (only required with TCP)