Are there any tools to dynamically and graphically display the iterations between a bound socket and connected clients? Debugging issues in sockets with multiple simultaneous interactions can be a huge mess, I would think that displaying the interactions graphically would be a great help to understanding what is going on in a server's interactions.
I'm unaware of graphical applications per se.
However, tcpdump or (for those who require a GUI) wireshark are pretty good at showing you the packets being sent, which is what you actually want here in general.
If looking at the big picture is enough for you - process hierarchy and the connections (TCP socket, Unix domain socket, pipes) between them - you can give a try to ipcvis:
https://sourceforge.net/projects/ipcvis/
The tool records process hierarchy and socket information for distinct states and then visualize new relations from state to state:
http://youtu.be/8XFKwzkexQY
Related
I am doing research in parallel computing side in my master. we are creating a real TriBA-Network a Triple based architecture (for multi core processor network). For this i am working on network part. So i have to implement routing in this network on layer 2 level. i have done routing on layer 3 (network layer) using TCP\IP protocol. But we have to send/received frames (not packets) on layer 2.
Maybe i can use RAW socket for sending frames using network programming. but how we can received these frames in remote PC and forward.
If somebody know about lower level communication that i can use for this task kindly share here.
Advance Thank you.
Computer's are connected in that topology over LAN locally TriBA Topology Network
From the question it's not that clear why this is to be done in kernel.
However, I understand from the question that some lower-layer approach is needed. If there are some explicit latency or throughput requirements then it needs to be stated in the question.
So, if we postpone the hypothetical in-kernel approach, indeed, you may use PF_PACKET sockets to send them. The same way, using PF_PACKET sockets you may receive them at the remote side. However, typically, this still involves certain overhead since the kernel copies data between its own buffers and the socket buffers accessed by the user in the userland.
From this perspective you may consider PACKET_MMAP technique to set up direct memory mapping to access data from kernel-side buffers. This might be a really good improvement in terms of, say, throughput, but it's rather controversial whether this will fit your need of forwarding.
Another one suggestion is to use some sort of like data plane kit (please find the link on that page) which may have a set of libraries designed specially for kernel-bypass networking (similar to PACKET_MMAP, but much better) and for certain tasks like L2 forwarding.
All in all, it is likely that you have enough tools to do what you need, however, a more detailed description would be better for understanding.
I'm breaking a big application into several processes and I want each process to communicate with each other.
for now it's gonna be on the same server, but later several servers on same local network will have several processes that will need to communicate between each other. (means service on one server, with service on other server on same vpc)
so.. my raw options are tcp or unix sockets. I know that with Unix sockets can be useful only if you're on the same server. but we're thinking about writing our own implementation that on same server processes will communicate on unix sockets, and between servers that will communicate using tcp.
is it worth it ? of course tcp sockets are slower then unix sockets.. cause it doesn't go through the network and doesn't get wrapped with tcp related data. the question is by how much ? I couldn't find online proof of benchmarking between tcp and unix sockets. if tcp adds 3%-5% overhead that's cool, but can it be more then that ? I'd like to learn from experience of big projects.. of other people over the years, but didn't find anything relevant.
next...
our project is a NodejS project.
some people may say that I can use a broker for messages, so I tried using nats.io compared to node-ipc (https://www.npmjs.com/package/node-ipc) and I found out that node-ipc is 4 times faster but nats has the cool publish-subscribe feature... but performance is important.
so I have tons of options, no concrete decision.
any information regarding the issue would be greatly appreciated.
The question is actually too broad to answer, but one answer for TCP vs unix domain sockets:
Architect your code, so that you can easily move between those if necessary. The programming model for these is basically the same (both are bidirectional streams of data), and the read/write APIs on OS level as well as in most frameworks is the same. This means e.g. in node both will inherit from the Readable/WriteableStream interfaces. That means the only code that you need to change for switching between those is the listener on the server side where you call the TCP accept APIs instead of the unix domain socket accept APIs and the other way around. You can even have your application accept both types of connections and later on handle them the same internally.
TCP support is always nice because it gives you some flexibility. With my last measurement the overhead was a little bit more (I think 30% versus TCP over loopback) but these are all micro benchmarks and it won't matter for most applications. Unix domain sockets might have an advantage if require some of their special functions, e.g. the ability to send file descriptors across them.
And regarding TCP vs NATS & Co:
If you are not that experienced with network programming and protocol design it makes sense to use readymade IPC systems. That could be anything from HTTP to gRPC to Thrift. These are all point-to-point systems. NATS is different, since its a message broker and not RPC. It also requires an extra component in the middle. Whether this makes sense totally depends on the application.
My goal is to monitor sockets and relate them to the applications that created them.
I am aware of netstat, ss, lsof and so on and that they can list all sockets with their application.
And I also know that I can parse /proc/net/tcp to get the sockets and relate them to the applications with /proc/(PID), which is exactly what these tools do or they use netlink sockets.
My researches brought me to an article which explains how to get all sockets from the kernel with netlink via the inet_diag protocol. The user space program sets up a netlink socket of the inet_diag type and sends a request to the kernel. The response consists of several messages which contain the sockets and additional related information.
This is really neat, but unfortunately the kernel sends this information only once per request. So I have to "poll" continuously.
Further researches brought me to another article which monitors IP changes of interfaces with netlink route sockets continuously. The socket is bound to a multicast group and then messages are read from it in an endless loop.
So I investigated if there is the same possibility with the inet_diag sockets. Unfortunately I am not really able to understand kernel code. But as far as I can tell there are no multicast groups for this socket family.
At this point I am stuck and I need to know if this approach is somehow feasible or somebody knows any other hints.
You can try dtrace if every tools you mentioned can't meet your requirement.
You can use kprobe kernel module to hook all connect system call，whichi monitor sockets and relate them to the applications that created them
just like Elkeid，Elkeid Driver hooks kernel functions via Kprobe, providing rich and accurate data collection capabilities, including kernel-level process execve probing, privilege escalation monitoring, network audition, and much more. The Driver treats Container-based monitoring as a first-class citizen as Host-based data collection by supporting Linux Namespace. Compare to User Space agents on the market, Elkeid provides more comprehensive information with massive performance improvement.
We're trying to debug an issue with a server that must receive and respond to a large number of persistent HTTP connections.
Ideally we'd like a tool that could pick (at random) a single HTTP connection and log all traffic to and from it, such that we can see what is going on.
Unfortunately we don't have the ability to limit the number of persistent connections we must respond to (typically it is thousands of them), so we really need to tool to narrow down its monitoring to just a single connection.
Can anyone recommend such a tool, and give guidance on how to persuade it to do what we need?
Wireshark is a great open source tool for this purpose.
If using wireshark directly doesn't work out, you could fiddle with the routing on a firewall/router type box and have the monitored connection go out over a different interface (where you can tap into it using wireshark or whatever) than all the rest of the connections to the server.
The actual capturing of packets is usually done by libpcap.
There are different tools building on top of it:
First there is good old tcpdump. It is a text tool, which allows you to specify what packets you are interested in and prints (per default) a line for each matching packet. Actually you have lots of option what shall be done. You can also dump all traffic in a capture file.
Then there is wireshark (formerly known as ethereal). This is a GUI allowing you to capture packets as in tcpdump, and has lots of ways to analyze such data. It can also read and analyze capture files created by tcpdump.
Along with wireshark comes tshark (formerly known as tethereal), which is pretty much the console version of wireshark.
If you are only interested in the data send in the packets have a look at tcpflow.
There are also some more advanced tools which can also be used to attack other hosts.
For example ettercap, will list all current connections and among others can show you the data send on that connection.
It is not completely clear from your question, what exactly you try to find out, but it sounds like something like tcpflow might be what you want.
I spent the last days reading through man pages, documentations and anything else google brought up, but I suppose I'm even more confused now than I was at the beginning.
Here is what I want to do: I want to send and receive data packets with my own layer 3-x protocol(s) via a wireless interface (802.11) on Linux systems with C/C++.
So far, so good. I do not require beacons, association or any AP/SSID related stuff. However, for data transmissions I'd like the MAC layer to behave "as usual", meaning unicast packets are ACK'd, retransmissions, backoff etc. I'd also like to enjoy the extended QoS capabilites (802.11e with 4 queues and different access categories). Promiscuous mode on the other hand is not a concern, I require only broadcast packets and packets sent to the specific station.
What would be the right way to go about it? Most of the documentation out there on raw socket access seems to be focused on network sniffing and that does not help. I've been playing around with the monitor mode for some time now, but from what I've read so far, received packets are not ACK'd in monitor mode etc.
Without monitor mode, what would be the alternative? Using ad hoc mode and unix raw sockets? Or do I have to fiddle around with the drivers?
I'm not looking for a complete solution, just some good ideas, where to start. I read through the man pages for socket(2), socket(7) and packet(7) but that did not help concerning the behaviour of the MAC layer in different modes.
Thanks in advance.
802.11 is layer 2 (and 1) protocol specification. It was designed in a way, which allows higher-layer protocols to treat it as Ethernet network. Addressing and behaviour is generally the same. So for a layer 3 protocol you should not be concerned about 802.11 at all and write your code as if you were expecting it to run on Ethernet network.
To make it work you should first connect to a wireless network of some sort (which is conceptually equal to plugging a wire into a Ethernet card). Here you may choose ad-hoc (aka IBSS) or infrastructural (aka BSS) network (or PBSS once 802.11ad is approved ;).
Operating cards without any sort of association with network (just spitting out packets on air) is not a good idea for a couple of reasons. Most importantly it's very hardware dependent and unreliable. You can still do it using RF mon (AKA monitor mode) interface on one side and packet injection (using radiotap header) on the other but I don't recommend that. Even if you have a set of identical cards you'll most likely encounter hard to explain and random behaviour at some point. 802.11 NICs are just not designed for this kind of operation and keep different mount of state inside firmware (read about FullMAC vs. SoftMAC cards). Even SoftMAC cards differ significantly. For example theoretically in monitor mode, as you said, card should not ACK received packets. There are cards though that will ACK received frame anyway, because they base their decision exclusively on the fact that said frame is addressed to them. Some cards may even try to ACK all frames they see. Similar thing will happen with retransmissions: some cards will send injected packet only once (that's how it should work). In other NICs, retransmissions are handled by hardware (and firmware) and driver cannot turn it off, so you will get automatic retransmission even with injected data.
Sticking with layer 3 and using existing modes (like ad hoc), will give you all capabilities you want and more (QoS etc.). Ethernet frame that you send to interface will be "translated" by the kernel to 802.11 format with QoS mapping etc.
If you want to find out about MAC behaviour in various modes you'll have to either read the mac80211 code or 802.11 standard itself. http://linuxwireless.org wiki my help you with a few things, but kernel hackers are usually to busy to write documentation other than comments in the code ;)
L3 protocol implementation itself can be also done either in kernel or user mode (using raw sockets). As usual kernel-side will be harder to do, but more powerful.
Because you want to create own network layer protocol (replacement for IP), the keyword is: "raw ethernet socket". So ignore "Raw IP socket" stuff.
This is where to start:
int sockfd = socket( PF_PACKET, SOCK_RAW, htons(XXX) );
Correct man page is: packet(7).
Find more information by googling with the keyword.
One quite complete example here.
Edit: The link to the example seems to be currently broken: another examples
Probably you want something like libpcap.
Libpcap allows you to read/inject raw packets from/into a network interface.
First, there’s something you should be aware of when trying to transmit raw 802.12 frames- the device driver must support packet injection.
You mentioned monitor mode, which is at a high level the rx equivalent of the injection capability- which is not a “mode”, jist a capability/feature. I say this because some 892.11 device drivers on Linux either:
Support monitor mode and frame injection
Support monitor mode and not frame injection
Support neither
I don’t know any straightforward way to check if the driver supports frame injection aside from attempting frame injection and sniffing the air on another device to confirm it was seen.
Monitor mode is usually easy to check by using sudo wlan0 set monitor and seeing what the return code and/or output is.
It’s been a few years since I’ve worked on this but at the time, very few devices supported monitor mode and frame injection “out of the box”. Many only supported monitor mode with a modified version of the vendor or kernel driver
You’ll want to make sure your device has a driver available that fully supports both. This sort of task (frame monitoring and injection) is common for Penetration Testers who tend to use Kali Linux, which is really just an Ubuntu distribution with a bunch of “hacking” tools and (modified) 802.11 device drivers preloaded and in its repositories. You can often save time finding a well supported card by using a search engine to find the device and driver recommended for Kali users
I’m bringing this monitor/injection capability up explicitly because when I first worked on a similar project a few years ago, I needed to use a patched version of the official kernel driver to support monitor mode- it was an rtl8812au chipset. At that time, I made an incorrect assumption that monitor mode support in the driver implied full injection support. I spent 2 days banging my head against the wall, convinced my frames weren’t built correctly in my application, causing no frames to leave the card. Turned out I needed a more recent branch of the driver I was using to get the full injection support. This driver in particular supports both monitor mode and frame injection now. The most frustrating thing about diagnosing that problem was that I did not receive any errors from system calls or in kernel messages while trying to transmit the frames- they were just being silently discarded somewhere, presumably in the driver
To your main question about how to do this- the answer is almost certainly libpcap if you’re writing your application in C/C++ as libpcap provides not only packet capture APIs but also packet injection APIs
If you do it in Python, scapy is an excellent option. The benefit of Python/scapy is that
Python code is much quicker to write than C
scapy provides a significant amount of classes that you can use to intuitively create a frame layer by layer
Because the layers are implemented as classes, you can also extend and “register” existing classes to make certain frames easier to create (or parse when received)
You can do this in straight C using the UNIX sockets API with raw sockets directly- but you’ll have to deal with things that libpcap exists to abstract from you- like underlying system calls that may be required when doing raw frame transmission, aside from the standard socket(), send(), recv() calls. I’m speculating that there are a handful of ioctl calls you may need at the least, specific to the kernel 802.11x subsystem/framework- and these ioctl() calls and their values may not be completely portable across different major kernel versions. I’ll admit I ended up not using the pure C (without libpcap) approach, so I’m not 100% sure about this potential problem. It’s something you should look more into if you plan to do it without libpcap. I don’t recommend it unless you have a really good reason to
It sounds like you are getting the media and transport layers mixed up.
802.11 is what's commonly referred to as a "link", "physical", or "media" layer, meaning it only deals with the transmission of raw datagrams.
Concepts like ACKs, retransmissions, backoff (flow control) apply to the "transport" layer, and those particular terms are strongly associated with TCP/IP.
Implementing your own complete transport layer from scratch is very difficult and almost certainly not what you want to do. If instead you want to use the existing TCP/IP stack on top of your own custom interpretation of 802.11, then you probably want to create a virtual network interface. This would act as an intermediary between TCP/IP and the media layer.
Hopefully this gives you some better context and keywords to look for.