It must be an IP address; enforce that at the type level.
Suggested-by: Brad Fitzpatrick <bradfitz@tailscale.com>
Signed-off-by: Josh Bleecher Snyder <josharian@gmail.com>
We had two separate code paths for the initial UDP listener bind
and any subsequent rebinds.
IPv6 got left out of the rebind code.
Rather than duplicate it there, unify the two code paths.
Then improve the resulting code:
* Rebind had nested listen attempts to try the user-specified port first,
and then fall back to :0 if that failed. Convert that into a loop.
* Initial bind tried only the user-specified port.
Rebind tried the user-specified port and 0.
But there are actually three ports of interest:
The one the user specified, the most recent port in use, and 0.
We now try all three in order, as appropriate.
* In the extremely rare case in which binding to port 0 fails,
use a dummy net.PacketConn whose reads block until close.
This will keep the wireguard-go receive func goroutine alive.
As a pleasant side-effect of this, if we decide that
we need to resuscitate #1796, it will now be much easier.
Fixes#1799
Co-authored-by: David Anderson <danderson@tailscale.com>
Signed-off-by: Josh Bleecher Snyder <josharian@gmail.com>
Assume it'll stay at 0 forever, so hard-code it
and delete code conditional on it being non-0.
Signed-off-by: Josh Bleecher Snyder <josharian@gmail.com>
It was set to context.Background by all callers, for the same reasons.
Set it locally instead, to simplify call sites.
Signed-off-by: Josh Bleecher Snyder <josharian@gmail.com>
The old implementation knew too much about how wireguard-go worked.
As a result, it missed genuine problems that occurred due to unrelated bugs.
This fourth attempt to fix the health checks takes a black box approach.
A receive func is healthy if one (or both) of these conditions holds:
* It is currently running and blocked.
* It has been executed recently.
The second condition is required because receive functions
are not continuously executing. wireguard-go calls them and then
processes their results before calling them again.
There is a theoretical false positive if wireguard-go go takes
longer than one minute to process the results of a receive func execution.
If that happens, we have other problems.
Updates #1790
Signed-off-by: Josh Bleecher Snyder <josharian@gmail.com>
They were not doing their job.
They need yet another conceptual re-think.
Start by clearing the decks.
Signed-off-by: Josh Bleecher Snyder <josharian@gmail.com>
We had a long-standing bug in which our TUN events channel
was being received from simultaneously in two places.
The first is wireguard-go.
At wgengine/userspace.go:366, we pass e.tundev to wireguard-go,
which starts a goroutine (RoutineTUNEventReader)
that receives from that channel and uses events to adjust the MTU
and bring the device up/down.
At wgengine/userspace.go:374, we launch a goroutine that
receives from e.tundev, logs MTU changes, and triggers
state updates when up/down changes occur.
Events were getting delivered haphazardly between the two of them.
We don't really want wireguard-go to receive the up/down events;
we control the state of the device explicitly by calling device.Up.
And the userspace.go loop MTU logging duplicates logging that
wireguard-go does when it received MTU updates.
So this change splits the single TUN events channel into up/down
and other (aka MTU), and sends them to the parties that ought
to receive them.
I'm actually a bit surprised that this hasn't caused more visible trouble.
If a down event went to wireguard-go but the subsequent up event
went to userspace.go, we could end up with the wireguard-go device disappearing.
I believe that this may also (somewhat accidentally) be a fix for #1790.
Signed-off-by: Josh Bleecher Snyder <josharian@gmail.com>
The existing implementation was completely, embarrassingly conceptually broken.
We aren't able to see whether wireguard-go's receive function goroutines
are running or not. All we can do is model that based on what we have done.
This commit fixes that model.
Fixes#1781
Signed-off-by: Josh Bleecher Snyder <josharian@gmail.com>
Avery reported a sub-ms health transition from "receiveIPv4 not running" to "ok".
To avoid these transient false-positives, be more precise about
the expected lifetime of receive funcs. The problematic case is one in which
they were started but exited prior to a call to connBind.Close.
Explicitly represent started vs running state, taking care with the order of updates.
Signed-off-by: Josh Bleecher Snyder <josharian@gmail.com>
I've spent two days searching for a theoretical wireguard-go bug
around receive functions exiting early.
I've found many bugs, but none of the flavor we're looking for.
Restore wireguard-go's logging around starting and stopping receive functions,
so that we can definitively rule in or out this particular theory.
Signed-off-by: Josh Bleecher Snyder <josharian@gmail.com>
I see a bunch of these in some logs I'm looking at,
separated only by a few seconds.
Log the error so we can tell what's going on here.
Signed-off-by: Josh Bleecher Snyder <josharian@gmail.com>
These were getting rate-limited for nodes with many peers.
Consolate the output into single lines, which are nicer anyway.
Signed-off-by: Josh Bleecher Snyder <josharian@gmail.com>
We were accidentally logging oldPort -> oldPort.
Log oldPort as well as c.port; if we failed to get the preferred port
in a previous rebind, oldPort might differ from c.port.
Signed-off-by: Josh Bleecher Snyder <josharian@gmail.com>
These aren't particularly performance critical,
but since I have an optimization pending for them,
it's worth having a corresponding benchmark.
Signed-off-by: Josh Bleecher Snyder <josharian@gmail.com>
This benchmark is far from perfect: It mixes together
client and server. Still, it provides a starting point
for easy profiling.
Signed-off-by: Josh Bleecher Snyder <josharian@gmail.com>
iOS doesn't let you run subprocesses,
which means we can't use netstat to get routing information.
Instead, use syscalls and grub around in the results.
We keep the old netstat version around,
both for use in non-cgo builds,
and for use testing the syscall-based version.
Note that iOS doesn't ship route.h,
so we include a copy here from the macOS 10.15 SDK
(which is itself unchanged from the 10.14 SDK).
I have tested manually that this yields the correct
gateway IP address on my own macOS and iOS devices.
More coverage would be most welcome.
Signed-off-by: Josh Bleecher Snyder <josharian@gmail.com>
