Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns
James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Thu, 11 July 2013 20:31 UTC
Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B2FB11E8156 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 13:31:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.539
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.539 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.060, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gbuXRXbQs42l for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 13:31:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA39121F9AC1 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 13:31:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UxNVV-0005bv-Lq for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 20:30:29 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 20:30:29 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UxNVV-0005bv-Lq@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <jasnell@gmail.com>) id 1UxNVM-0004RY-6C for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 20:30:20 +0000
Received: from mail-oa0-f52.google.com ([209.85.219.52]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <jasnell@gmail.com>) id 1UxNVL-0001y4-Iu for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 20:30:20 +0000
Received: by mail-oa0-f52.google.com with SMTP id g12so11678098oah.39 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 13:29:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=XiWjAt2Ijl84MpJ3DcYX2HxLvtXfuzOLVm9MsZV3FgU=; b=LPU5mU0xLsVRKGSwTIimLSU9jDxiBDGxPnY4KFJ08j8wuyd4b7jwCJYVSs1LuC2Xui bb/uDNWFqEyYitEJbYp/8c15rrd5dwyY0GJ52sIhYQzgd3b5gK9Bw4XYiYzmCOAhMt74 AxQw/S8YMaVrmktk0JsSogzcF8vJDUKMtLPxvKkiF0djb71fS1WTcT/ouFMR0+gsfFS3 Hqp6iLyR2GDcdMgZW3Wf5qc5iBQTh4FcdRB4e2uHk/Ip0R26ougwdwybHkWIxtKrItPK KRmqcA8HjcUnl0axmOPELdWeQuAQXob+jpstzjfK3vFXbmMgVibQj4MWFyzYjD4Hpadg lDPw==
X-Received: by 10.60.42.101 with SMTP id n5mr33201570oel.4.1373574593693; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 13:29:53 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.60.55.8 with HTTP; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 13:29:33 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAP+FsNcAJB85i=me4dqjzPcF_uV88LsLr+hBLrxZv_F8hdB4Dg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+qvzFPUpcm6kUtJx+rTw8Dpp4Gtx4Bmr3XPDhjNsjchUfN9_w@mail.gmail.com> <51DE1E32.9010801@treenet.co.nz> <CAP+FsNdcYhA=V5Z+zbt70b5e7WmcmXgjG5M9L3vfXeXfTwmRnw@mail.gmail.com> <51DE327C.7010901@treenet.co.nz> <CABkgnnXeqD6wh0dcJ1Dz=4PLAJNkDeGcCuzMr9ATd_7xS7nbGQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABP7RbcUkLf3CTAB4jwicnsiKWLGVY6=hX0k=0256SR_gcVt9A@mail.gmail.com> <CAP+FsNcOZnLa9GCr6XcZNFdq-mSXG6Q-_1Lb5u=a2YyXNCsVfQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABP7RbfGYsryOsEWW+UWJ+fdVejiRQSHH0DF_Kw4Pf=EJQX+rw@mail.gmail.com> <CAP+FsNcAJB85i=me4dqjzPcF_uV88LsLr+hBLrxZv_F8hdB4Dg@mail.gmail.com>
From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 13:29:33 -0700
Message-ID: <CABP7RbcgRr8mHVaQK8pbBP=XR3gjZDcAAfbYm4waz3CCydX+sg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.219.52; envelope-from=jasnell@gmail.com; helo=mail-oa0-f52.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.690, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1UxNVL-0001y4-Iu deae244cc2b84d8c925484b650743750
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CABP7RbcgRr8mHVaQK8pbBP=XR3gjZDcAAfbYm4waz3CCydX+sg@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/18709
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Yes, and I'm saying that, the way the mechanism is currently defined, as soon as you set the size to zero, those "free" items are removed from the table and you no longer get them for "free"... so there is a certain amount of state that *is* allocated per connection (even if it's relatively minor). Ultimately, the question of whether header compression can be used as an attack vector will rest entirely on implementation and experimentation. On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 1:07 PM, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm calling that the static table. Those are the elements you get for "free" > (as in the memory is allocated once in the process, as opposed to for every > connection). > > -=R > > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 1:02 PM, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 12:35 PM, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote: >> >[snip] >> > >> > The DoS vector you're talking about is not a DoS vector if the >> > intermediary >> > resets all streams before the change-of-state-size comes into effect. >> > When the state size is 0, one should be able to use some kinds of >> > 'indexed' >> > representations, so long as those representations refer only to items in >> > the >> > static tables. Why do you believe that this would use more or less CPU? >> > (It >> > should use less CPU and less memory...) >> > [snip] >> >> Well, as far as I can tell, according to the current header >> compression draft, there is no "static table". The header table is >> pre-populated, yes, but those items would fall out of the header table >> via eviction as the table fills. There is nothing in the current >> header compression draft that says those items are permanent.... Given >> that, and given that we've already established that reducing the >> header table size forces eviction, setting the size to zero would >> cause all of the pre-populated items to be evicted. >> >> - James > >
- Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Poul-Henning Kamp
- HTTP router point-of-view concerns Christian Parpart
- Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Amos Jeffries
- Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Roberto Peon
- Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Amos Jeffries
- Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Christian Parpart
- Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Amos Jeffries
- Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Michael Sweet
- Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Martin Thomson
- Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns James M Snell
- Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Sam Pullara
- Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Roberto Peon
- Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Roberto Peon
- Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Amos Jeffries
- Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Sam Pullara
- Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Patrick McManus
- Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Roberto Peon
- Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns James M Snell
- Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Roberto Peon
- Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns James M Snell
- Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Roberto Peon
- Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Sam Pullara
- Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Roberto Peon
- Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Martin Thomson
- Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Poul-Henning Kamp
- Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Mark Nottingham
- Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Mike Belshe
- Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Gábor Molnár
- Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Gábor Molnár
- Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Poul-Henning Kamp
- Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Michael Sweet
- Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Christian Parpart
- Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Willy Tarreau
- Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Patrick McManus
- Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Jeff Pinner
- Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Martin Thomson
- Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Roberto Peon
- Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Ludin, Stephen
- Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Roberto Peon
- Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns James M Snell
- Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Amos Jeffries
- Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Amos Jeffries
- Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Roberto Peon
- Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Yoav Nir
- Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Willy Tarreau
- Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Poul-Henning Kamp
- Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Poul-Henning Kamp
- Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Willy Tarreau
- Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Poul-Henning Kamp
- Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Sam Pullara
- Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Willy Tarreau
- Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Mark Delany
- Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Poul-Henning Kamp
- Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Poul-Henning Kamp
- Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Willy Tarreau
- Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Willy Tarreau
- Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Poul-Henning Kamp
- Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Willy Tarreau
- Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Yoav Nir
- Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Poul-Henning Kamp
- Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Yoav Nir
- Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Willy Tarreau
- Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Poul-Henning Kamp
- Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Stephen Farrell
- Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Willy Tarreau
- Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Sam Pullara
- Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Nicolas Mailhot
- Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Nicolas Mailhot
- Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Nicolas Mailhot
- Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Martin Nilsson
- Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Nico Williams
- Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Nico Williams
- Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Poul-Henning Kamp
- Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Nico Williams
- Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Poul-Henning Kamp
- Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Nico Williams