Archive for the ‘Network’ Category

Daladevelop hackathon

Monday, September 15th, 2014

On Saturday the 13th of September, I took part in a hackathon in Falun Sweden organized by Daladevelop.

20-something hacker enthusiasts gathered in a rather large and comfortable room in this place, an almost three hour drive from my home. A number of talks and lectures were held through the day and the difficulty level ranged from newbie to more advanced. My own contribution was a talk about curl followed by one about HTTP/2. Blabbermouth as I am, I exhausted the friendly audience by talking a good total of almost 90 minutes straight. I got a whole range of clever and educated questions and I think and hope we all had a good time as a result.

The organizers ran a quiz for two-person teams. I teamed up with Andreas Olsson in team Emacs, and after having identified x86 assembly, written binary, spotted perl, named Ada Lovelace, used the term lightfoot and provided about 15 more answers we managed to get first prize and the honor of having beaten the others. Great fun!

HTTP/2 interop pains

Tuesday, September 2nd, 2014

At around 06:49 CEST on the morning of August 27 2014, Google deployed an HTTP/2 draft-14 implementation on their front-end servers that handle logins to Google accounts (and possibly others). Those at least take care of all the various login stuff you do with Google, G+, gmail, etc.

The little problem with that was just that their implementation of HTTP2 is in disagreement with all existing client implementations of that same protocol at that draft level. Someone immediately noticed this problem and filed a bug against Firefox.

The Firefox Nightly and beta versions have HTTP2 enabled by default and so users quickly started to notice this and a range of duplicate bug reports have been filed. And keeps being filed as more users run into this problem. As far as I know, Chrome does not have this enabled by default so much fewer Chrome users get this ugly surprise.

The Google implementation has a broken cookie handling (remnants from the draft-13 it looks like by how they do it). As I write this, we’re on the 7th day with this brokenness. We advice bleeding-edge users of Firefox to switch off HTTP/2 support in the mean time until Google wakes up and acts.

You can actually switch http2 support back on once you’ve logged in and it then continues to work fine. Below you can see what a lovely (wildly misleading) error message you get if you try http2 against Google right now with Firefox:

google-http2-draft14-cookies

This post is being debated on hacker news.

Updated: 20:14 CEST: There’s a fix coming, that supposedly will fix this problem on Thursday September 4th.

Update 2: In the morning of September 4th (my time), Google has reverted their servers to instead negotiate SPDY 3.1 and Firefox is fine with this.

Firefox and partial content

Monday, June 16th, 2014

Firefox BallOne of the first bugs that fell into my lap when I started working for Mozilla not a very long time ago, was bug 237623. Anyone involved in Mozilla knows a bug in that range is fairly old (we just recently passed one million filed bugs). This particular bug was filed in March 2004 and there are (right now) 26 other bugs marked as duplicates of this. Today, the fix for this problem has landed.

The core of the problem is that when a HTTP server sends contents back to a client, it can send a header along indicating the size of the data in the response. The header is called “Content-Length:”. If the connection gets broken during transfer for whatever reason and the browser hasn’t received as much data as was initially claimed to be delivered, that’s a very good hint that something is wrong and the transfer was incomplete.

The perhaps most annoying way this could be seen is when you download a huge DVD image or something and for some reason the connection gets cut off after only a short time, way before the entire file is downloaded, but Firefox just silently accept that as the end of the transfer and think everything was fine and dandy.

What complicates the issue is the eternal problem: not everything abides to the protocol. This said, if there are frequent violators of the protocol we can’t strictly fail on each case of problem we detect but we must instead do our best to handle it anyway.

Is Content-Length a frequently violated HTTP response header?

Let’s see…

  1. Back in the HTTP 1.0 days, the Content-Length header was not very important as the connection was mostly shut down after each response anyway. Alas, clients/browsers would swiftly learn to just wait for the disconnect anyway.
  2. Back in the old days, there were cases of problems with “large files” (files larger than 2 or 4GB) which every now and then caused the Content-Length: header to turn into negative or otherwise confused values when it wrapped. That’s not really happening these days anymore.
  3. With HTTP 1.1 and its persuasive use of persistent connections it is important to get the size right, as otherwise the chain of requests get messed up and we end up with tears and sad faces
  4. In curl’s HTTP parser we’ve always been strictly abiding to this header and we’ve bailed out hard on mismatches. This is a very rare error for users to get and based on this (admittedly unscientific data) I believe that there is not a widespread use of servers sending bad Content-Length headers.
  5. It seems Chrome at least in some aspects is already much more strict about this header.

My fix for this problem takes a slightly careful approach and only enforces the strictness for HTTP 1.1 or later servers. But then as a bonus, it has grown to also signal failure if a chunked encoded transfer ends without the ending trailer or if a SPDY or http2 transfer gets prematurely stopped.

This is basically a 6-line patch at its core. The rest is fixing up old test cases, added new tests etc.

As a counter-point, Eric Lawrence apparently worked on adding stricter checks in IE9 three years ago as he wrote about in Content-Length in the Real World. They apparently subsequently added the check again in IE10 which seems to have caused some problems for them. It remains to be seen how this change affects Firefox users out in the real world. I believe it’ll be fine.

This patch also introduces the error code for a few other similar network situations when the connection is closed prematurely and we know there are outstanding data that never arrived, and I got the opportunity to improve how Firefox behaves when downloading an image and it gets an error before the complete image has been transferred. Previously (when a partial transfer wasn’t an error), it would always throw away the image on an error and instead show the “image not found” picture. That really doesn’t make sense I believe, as a partial image is better than that default one – especially when a large portion of the image has been downloaded already.

Follow-up effects

Other effects of this change that possibly might be discovered and cause some new fun reports: prematurely cut off transfers of javascript or CSS will discard the entire javascript/CSS file. Previously the partial file would be used.

Of course, I doubt that these are the files that are as commonly cut off as many other file types but still on a very slow and bad connection it may still happen and the new behavior will make Firefox act as if the file wasn’t loaded at all, instead of previously when it would happily used the portions of the files that it had actually received. Partial CSS and partial javascript of course could lead to some “fun” effects of brokenness.

Http2 interim meeting NYC

Sunday, June 8th, 2014

On June 5th, around thirty people sat down around a huge table in a conference room on the 4th floor in the Google offices in New York City, with a heavy rain pouring down outside.

It was time for another IETF http2 interim meeting. The attendees were all participants in the HTTPbis work group and came from a wide variety of companies and countries. The major browser vendors were represented there, and so were operators and big service providers and some proxy people. Most of the people who have been speaking up on the mailing list over the last year or so, unfortunately with a couple of people notably absent. (And before anyone asks, yes we are a group where the majority is old males like me.)

Most people present knew many of the others already, which helped to create a friendly familiar spirit and we quickly got started on the Thursday morning working our way through the rather long lits of issues to deal with. When we had our previous interim meeting in London, I think most of us though we would’ve been further along today but recent development and discussions on the list had actually brought back a lot of issues we though we were already done with and we now reiterated a whole slew of subjects. We weren’t allowed to take photographs indoors so you won’t see any pictures of this opportunity from me here.

Google offices building logo

We did close many issues and I’ll just quickly mention some of the noteworthy ones here…

Extensions

We started out with the topic of “extensions”. Should we revert the decision from Zurich (where it was decided that we shouldn’t allow extensions in http2) or was the current state of the protocol the right one? The arguments for allowing extensions included that we’d keep getting requests for new things to add unless we have a way and that some of the recent stuff we’ve added really could’ve been done as extensions instead. An argument against it is that it makes things much simpler and reliable if we just document exactly what the protocol has and is, and removing “optional” behavior from the protocol has been one of the primary mantas along the design process.

The discussion went back and forth for a long time, and after almost three hours we had kind of a draw. Nobody was firmly against “the other” alternative but the two sides also seemed to have roughly the same amount of support. Then it was yet again time for the coin toss to guide us. Martin brought out an Australian coin and … the next protocol draft will allow extensions. Again. This also forces implementation to have to read and skip all unknown frames it receives compared to the existing situation where no unknown frames can ever occur.

BLOCKED as an extension

A rather given first candidate for an extension was the BLOCKED frame. At the time BLOCKED was added to the protocol it was explicitly added into the spec because we didn’t have extensions – and it is now being lifted out into one.

ALTSVC as an extension

What received slightly more resistance was the move to move out the ALTSVC frame as well. It was argued that the frame isn’t mandatory to support and therefore easily can be made into an extension.

Simplified padding

Another small change of the wire format since draft-12 was the removal of the high byte for padding to simplify. It reduces the amount you can pad a single frame but you can easily pad more using other means if you really have to, and there were numbers presented that said that 255 bytes were enough with HTTP 1.1 already so probably it will be enough for version 2 as well.

Schedule

There will be a new draft out really soon: draft -13. Martin, our editor of the spec, says he’ll be able to ship it in a week. That is intended to be the last draft, intended for implementation and it will then be expected to get deployed rather widely to allow us all in the industry to see how it works and be able to polish details or wordings that may still need it.

We had numerous vendors and HTTP stack implementers in the room and when we discussed schedule for when various products will be able to see daylight. If we all manage to stick to the plans. we may just have plenty of products and services that support http2 by the September/October time frame. If nothing major is found in this latest draft, we’re looking at RFC status not too far into 2015.

Meeting summary

I think we’re closing in for real now and I have good hopes for the protocol and our progress to a really wide scale deployment across the Internet. The HTTPbis group is an awesome crowd to work with and I had a great time. Our hosts took good care of us and made sure we didn’t lack any services or supplies. Extra thanks go to those of you who bought me dinners and to those who took me out to good beer places!

My http2 document

Yeah, it will now become somewhat out of date and my plan is to update it once the next draft ships. I’ll also do another http2 presentation already this week so I hope to also post an updated slide set soonish. Stay tuned!

Wireshark

My plan is to cooperate with the other Wireshark hackers and help making sure we have the next draft version supported in Wireshark really soon after its published.

curl and nghttp2

Most of the differences introduced are in the binary format so nghttp2 will need to be updated again – it is the library curl uses for the wire format of http2. The curl parts will need some adjustments, for example for Content-Encoding gzip that no longer is implicit but there should be little to do in the curl code for this draft bump.

Bye bye RFC 2616

Saturday, June 7th, 2014

In August 2007 the IETF HTTPbis work group started to make an update to the HTTP 1.1 specification RFC 2616 (from June 1999) which already was an update to RFC 2068 from 1996. I wasn’t part of the effort back then so I didn’t get to hear the back chatter or what exactly the expectations were on delivery time and time schedule, but I’m pretty sure nobody thought it would take almost seven long years for the update to reach publication status.

On June 6 2014 when RFC 7230 – RFC 7235 were released, the single 176 page document has turned into 6 documents with a total size that is now much larger, and there’s also a whole slew of additional related documents released at the same time.

2616 is deeply carved into my brain so it’ll take some time until I unlearn that, plus the fact that now we need to separate our pointers to one of those separate document instead of just one generic number for the whole thing. Source codes and documents all over now need to be carefully updated to instead refer to the new documents.

And the HTTP/2 work continues to progress at high speed. More about that in a separate blog post soon.

More details on the road from RFC2616 until today can be found in Mark Nottingham’s RFC 2616 is dead.

Why SFTP is still slow in curl

Wednesday, May 14th, 2014

Okay, there’s no point in denying this fact: SFTP transfers in curl and libcurl are much slower than if you just do them with your ordinary OpenSSH sftp command line tool or similar. The difference in performance can even be quite drastic.

Why is this so and what can we do about it? And by “we” I fully get that you dear reader think that I or someone else already deeply involved in the curl project should do it.

Background

I once blogged a lengthy post on how I modified libssh2 to do SFTP transfers much faster. curl itself uses libssh2 to do SFTP so there’s at least a good start. The problem is only that the speedup we did in libssh2 was because of SFTP’s funny protocol design so we had to:

  1. send off requests for a (large) set of data blocks at once, each block being N kilobytes big
  2. using a several hundred kilobytes big buffer (when downloading the received data would be stored in the big buffer)
  3. then return as soon as there’s one block (or more) that has returned from the server with data
  4. over time and in a loop, there are then blocks constantly in transit and a number of blocks always returning. By sending enough outgoing requests in the “outgoing pipe”, the “incoming pipe” and CPU can be kept fairly busy.
  5. never wait until the entire receive buffer is complete before we go on, but instead use a sliding buffer so that we avoid “halting points” in the transfer

This is more or less what the sftp tool does. We’ve also done experiments with using libssh2 directly and then we can reach quite decent transfer speeds.

libcurl

The libcurl transfer core is basically the same no matter which protocol that is being transferred. For a normal download this is what it does:

  1. waits for data to become available
  2. read as much data as possible into a 16KB buffer
  3. send the data to the application
  4. goto 1

So, there are two problems with this approach when it comes to the SFTP problems as described above.

The first one is that a 16KB buffer is very small in SFTP terms and immediately becomes a bottle neck in itself. In several of my experiments I could see how a buffer of 128, 256 or even 512 kilobytes would be needed to get high bandwidth high latency transfers to really fly.

The second being that with a fixed buffer it will come to a point every 16KB byte where it needs to wait for that specific response to come back before it can continue and ask for the next 16KB of data. That “sync point” is really not helping performance either – especially not when it happens so often as every 16KB.

A solution?

For someone who just wants a quick-fix and who builds their own libcurl, rebuild with CURL_MAX_WRITE_SIZE set to 256000 or something like that and you’ll get a notable boost. But that’s neither a nice nor clean fix.

A proper fix should first of all only be applied for SFTP transfers, thus deciding at run-time if it is necessary or not. Then it should dynamically provide a larger buffer and thirdly, for upload it should probably make the buffer “sliding” as in the libssh2 example code sftp_write_sliding.c.

This is also already mentioned in the TODO document as “Modified buffer size approach“.

There’s clearly room for someone to step forward and help us improve in this area. Welcome!

curl dot-to-dot

Less plain-text is better. Right?

Tuesday, May 13th, 2014

Every connection and every user on the Internet is being monitored and snooped at to at least some extent every now and then. Everything from the casual firesheep user in your coffee shop, an admin in your ISP, your parents/kids on your wifi network, your employer on the company network, your country’s intelligence service in a national network hub or just a random rogue person somewhere in the middle of all this.

My involvement in HTTP make me mostly view and participate in this discussion with this protocol primarily in mind, but the discussion goes well beyond HTTP and the concepts can (and will?) be applied to most Internet protocols in the future. You can follow some of these discussions in the httpbis group, the UTA group, the tcpcrypt list on twitter and elsewhere.

IETF just published RFC 7258 which states:

Pervasive Monitoring Is a Widespread Attack on Privacy

Passive monitoring

Most networking surveillance can be done entirely passively by just running the correct software and listening in on the correct cable. Because most internet traffic is still plain-text and readable by anyone who wants to read it when the bytes come flying by. Like your postman can read your postcards.

Opportunistic?

Recently there’s been a fierce discussion going on both inside and outside of IETF and other protocol and standards groups about doing “opportunistic encryption” (OE) and its merits and drawbacks. The term, which in itself is being debated and often is said to be better called “opportunistic keying” (OK) instead, is about having protocols transparently (invisible to the user) upgrade plain-text versions to TLS unauthenticated encrypted versions of the protocols. I’m emphasizing the unauthenticated word there because that’s a key to the debate. Recently I’ve been told that the term “opportunistic security” is the term to use instead…

In the way of real security?

Basically the argument against opportunistic approaches tends to be like this: by opportunistically upgrading plain-text to unauthenticated encrypted communication, sysadmins and users in the world will consider that good enough and they will then not switch to using proper, strong and secure authentication encryption technologies. The less good alternative will hamper the adoption of the secure alternative. Server admins should just as well buy a cert for 10 USD and use proper HTTPS. Also, listeners can still listen in on or man-in-the-middle unauthenticated connections if they capture everything from the start of the connection, including the initial key exchange. Or the passive listener will just change to become an active party and this unauthenticated way doesn’t detect that. OE doesn’t prevent snooping.

Isn’t it better than plain text?

The argument for opportunism here is that there will be nothing to the user that shows that it is “upgrading” to something less bad than plain text. Browsers will not show the padlock, clients will not treat the connection as “secure”. It will just silently and transparently make passive monitoring of networks much harder and it will force actors who truly want to snoop on specific traffic to up their game and probably switch to active monitoring for more cases. Something that’s much more expensive for the listener. It isn’t about the cost of a cert. It is about setting up and keeping the cert up-to-date, about SNI not being widely enough adopted and that we can see only 30% of all sites on the Internet today use HTTPS – for these reasons and others.

HTTP:// over TLS

In the httpbis work group in IETF the outcome of this debate is that there is a way being defined on how to do HTTP as specified with a HTTP:// URL – that we’ve learned is plain-text – over TLS, as part of the http2 work. Alt-Svc is the way. (The header can also be used to just load balance HTTP etc but I’ll ignore that for now)

Mozilla and Firefox is basically the only team that initially stands behind the idea of implementing this in a browser. HTTP:// done over TLS will not be seen nor considered any more secure than ordinary HTTP is and users will not be aware if that happens or not. Only true HTTPS connections will get the padlock, secure cookies and the other goodies true HTTPS sites are known and expected to get and show.

HTTP:// over TLS will just silently send everything through TLS (assuming that it can actually negotiate such a connection), thus making passive monitoring of the network less easy.

Ideally, future http2 capable servers will only require a config entry to be set TRUE to make it possible for clients to do OE on them.

HTTPS is the secure protocol

HTTP:// over TLS is not secure. If you want security and privacy, you should use HTTPS. This said, MITMing HTTPS transfers is still a widespread practice in certain network setups…

TCPcrypt

I find this initiative rather interesting. If implemented, it removes the need for all these application level protocols to do anything about opportunistic approaches and it could instead be handled transparently on TCP level! It still has a long way to go though before we will see anything like this fly in real life.

The future will tell

Is this just a fad that will get no adoption and go away or is it the beginning of something that will change how we do protocols in the future? Time will tell. Many harsh words are being exchanged over this topic in many a debate right now…

(I’m trying to stick to “HTTP:// over TLS” here when referring to doing HTTP OE/OK over TLS. This is partly because RFC2818 that describes how to do HTTPS uses the phrase “HTTP over TLS”…)

licensed to get shared

Tuesday, May 6th, 2014

As my http2 presentation is about to get its 16,000th viewer over at Slideshare I just have to take a moment and reflect over that fact.

Sixteen thousand viewers. I’ve uploaded slides there before over the years but no other presentation has gotten even close to this amount of attention even though some of them have been collecting views for years by now.

http2 presentation screenshot

I wrote my http2 explained document largely due to the popularity of my presentation and the stream of questions and curiosity that brought to life. Within just a couple of days, that 27 page document had been downloaded more than 2,000 times and by now over 5000 times. This is almost 7MB of PDF which I believe raises the bar for the ordinary casual browser to not download it without having an interest and intention to at least glance through it. Of course I realize a large portion of said downloads are never really read.

Someone suggested to me (possibly in jest) that I should convert these into ebooks and “charge 1 USD a piece to get some profit out of them”. I really won’t and I would have a struggle to do that. It has been said before but in my case it is indeed true: I stand on the shoulders of giants. I’ve just collected information and written down texts that mostly are ideas, suggestions and conclusions others have already made in various other forums, lists or documents. I wouldn’t feel right charging for that nor depriving anyone the rights and freedoms to create derivatives and continue building on what I’ve done. I’m just the curator and janitor here. Besides, I already have an awesome job at an awesome company that allows me to work full time on open source – every day.

The next phase started thanks to the open license. A friendly volunteer named Vladimir Lettiev showed up and translated the entire document into Russian and now suddenly the reach of the text is vastly expanded into a territory where it previously just couldn’t penetrate. With using people’s native languages, information can really trickle down to a much larger audience. Especially in regions that aren’t very Englishified.

http2 explained

Saturday, April 26th, 2014

http2 front page

I’m hereby offering you all the first version of my document explaining http2, the protocol. It features explanations on the background, basic fundamentals, details on the wire format and something about existing implementations and what’s to expect for the future.

The full PDF currently boasts 27 pages at version 1.0, but I plan to keep up with the http2 development going further and I’m also kind of thinking that I will get at least some user feedback, and I’ll do subsequent updates to improve and extend the document over time. Of course time will tell how good that will work.

The document is edited in libreoffice and that file is available on github, but ODT is really not a format suitable for patches and merges so I hope we can sort out changes with filing issues and sending emails.

curl and proxy headers

Friday, April 4th, 2014

Starting in the next curl release, 7.37.0, the curl tool supports the new command line option –proxy-header. (Completely merged at this commit.)

It works exactly like –header does, but will only include the headers in requests sent to a proxy, while the opposite is true for –header: that will only be sent in requests that will go to the end server. But of course, if you use a HTTP proxy and do a normal GET for example, curl will include headers for both the proxy and the server in the request. The bigger difference is when using CONNECT to a proxy, which then only will use proxy headers.

libcurl

For libcurl, the story is slightly different and more complicated since we’re having things backwards compatible there. The new libcurl still works exactly like the former one by default.

CURLOPT_PROXYHEADER is the new option that is the new proxy header option that should be set up exactly like CURLOPT_HTTPHEADER is

CURLOPT_HEADEROPT is then what an application uses to set how libcurl should use the two header options. Again, by default libcurl will keep working like before and use the CURLOPT_HTTPHEADER list in all HTTP requests. To change that behavior and use the new functionality instead, set CURLOPT_HEADEROPT to CURLHEADER_SEPARATE.

Then, the header lists will be handled as separate. An application can then switch back to the old behavior with a unified header list by using CURLOPT_HEADEROPT set to CURLHEADER_UNIFIED.