An Introduction to OpenSSL Programming, Part I of II
Our web server is mainly a mirror of the client but with a few twists. First, we fork() in order to let the server handle multiple clients. Second, we use OpenSSL's BIO APIs to read the client's request one line at a time, as well as to do buffered writes to the client. Finally, the server closure sequence is more complicated.
On Linux, the simplest way to write a server that can handle multiple clients is to create a new server process for each client that connects. We do that by calling fork() after accept() returns. Each new process executes independently and just exits when it's finished serving the client. Although this approach can be quite slow on busy web servers it's perfectly acceptable here. The main server accept loop is shown in Listing 5.
After forking and creating the SSL object, the server calls SSL_accept(), which causes OpenSSL to perform the server side of the SSL handshake. As with SSL_connect(), because we're using blocking sockets, SSL_accept() will block until the entire handshake has completed. Thus, the only situation in which SSL_accept() will return is when the handshake has completed or an error has been detected. SSL_accept() returns 1 for success and 0 or negative for error.
OpenSSL's BIO objects are stackable to some extent. Thus, we can wrap an SSL object in a BIO (the ssl_bio object) and then wrap that BIO in a buffered BIO object, as shown below:
io=BIO_new(BIO_f_buffer()); ssl_bio=BIO_new(BIO_f_ssl()); BIO_set_ssl(ssl_bio,ssl,BIO_CLOSE); BIO_push(io,ssl_bio);
This allows us to perform buffered reads and writes on the SSL connection by using the BIO_* functions on the new io object. At this point you might ask, why is this good? Primarily, it's a matter of programming convenience. It lets the programmer work in natural units (lines and characters) rather than SSL records.
An HTTP request consists of a request line followed by a bunch of header lines and an optional body. The end of the header lines is indicated by a blank line (i.e., a pair of CRLFs, though sometimes broken clients will send a pair of LFs instead). The most convenient way to read the request line and headers is to read one line at a time until you see a blank line. We can do this using the OpenSSL_BIO_gets() call, as shown in Listing 6.
The BIO_gets() call behaves analogously to the stdio fgets() call. It takes an arbitrary-sized buffer and a length and reads a line from the SSL connection into that buffer. The result is always null terminated (but includes the terminating LF). Thus, we simply read one line at a time until we get a line that consists of simply an LF or a CRLF.
Because we use a fixed-length buffer, it is possible, though unlikely, that we will get a line that's too long. In that event, the long line will be split over two lines. In the extremely unlikely event that the split happens right before the CRLF, the next line we read will consist of only the CRLF from the previous line. In this case we'll be fooled into thinking that the headers have finished prematurely. A real web server would check for this case, but it's not worth doing here. Note that no matter what the incoming line length is, there's no chance of a buffer overrun. All that can happen is that we'll misparse the headers.
Note that we really don't do anything with the HTTP request. We just read it and discard it. A real implementation would read the request line and the headers, figure out if there was a body and read that too.
The next step is to write the HTTP response and close the connection:
if((r=BIO_puts (io,"HTTP/1.0 200 OK\\r\\n"))<0) err_exit("Write error"); if((r=BIO_puts (io,"Server: EKRServer\\r\\n\\r\\n"))<0) err_exit("Write error"); if((r=BIO_puts (io,"Server test page\\r\\n"))<0) err_exit("Write error"); if((r=BIO_flush(io))<0) err_exit("Error flushing BIO");
Note that we're using BIO_puts() instead of SSL_write(). This allows us to write the response one line at a time but have the entire response written as a single SSL record. This is important because the cost of preparing an SSL record for transmission (computing the integrity check and encrypting it) is quite significant. Thus, it's a good idea to make the records as large as possible.
It's worth noting a couple of subtleties about using this kind of buffered write. First, you need to flush the buffer before you close. The SSL object has no knowledge that you've layered a BIO on top of it, so if you destroy the SSL connection you'll just leave the last chunk of data sitting in the buffer. The BIO_flush() call takes care of this. Also, by default, OpenSSL uses a 1024-byte buffer size for buffered BIOs. Because SSL records can be up to 16KB long, using a 1024-byte buffer can cause excessive fragmentation (and hence lower performance). You can use the BIO_ctrl() API to increase the buffer size.
Once we've finished transmitting the response, we need to send our close_notify. As before, this is done using SSL_shutdown(). Unfortunately, things get a bit trickier when the server closes first. Our first call to SSL_shutdown() sends the close_notify but doesn't look for it on the other side. Thus, it returns immediately but with a value of 0, indicating that the closure sequence isn't finished. It's then the application's responsibility to call SSL_shutdown() again.
It's possible to have two attitudes here. We could decide we've seen all of the HTTP request that we care about. We're not interested in anything else. Hence, we don't care whether the client sends a close_notify or not. Alternatively, we strictly obey the protocol and expect others to as well. Thus, we require a close_notify.
If we have the first attitude then life is simple. We call SSL_shutdown() to send our close_notify and then exit right away, regardless of whether the client has sent one or not. If we take the second attitude (which our sample server does), then life is more complicated because clients often don't behave correctly.
The first problem we face is that clients often don't send close_notifys all. In fact, some clients close the connection as soon as they've read the entire HTTP response (some versions of IE do this). When we send our close_notify, the other side may send a TCP RST segment, in which case the program will catch a SIGPIPE. We install a dummy SIGPIPE handler in initialize_ctx() to protect against this problem.
The second problem we face is that the client may not send a close_notify immediately in response to our close_notify. Some versions of Netscape require you to send a TCP FIN first. Thus, we call shutdown(s,1) before we call SSL_shutdown() the second time. When called with a “how” argument of 1, shutdown() sends a FIN but leaves the socket open for reading. The code to do the server shutdown is shown in Listing 7.
|Speed Up Your Web Site with Varnish||Jun 19, 2013|
|Non-Linux FOSS: libnotify, OS X Style||Jun 18, 2013|
|Containers—Not Virtual Machines—Are the Future Cloud||Jun 17, 2013|
|Lock-Free Multi-Producer Multi-Consumer Queue on Ring Buffer||Jun 12, 2013|
|Weechat, Irssi's Little Brother||Jun 11, 2013|
|One Tail Just Isn't Enough||Jun 07, 2013|
- Speed Up Your Web Site with Varnish
- Containers—Not Virtual Machines—Are the Future Cloud
- Linux Systems Administrator
- Lock-Free Multi-Producer Multi-Consumer Queue on Ring Buffer
- Non-Linux FOSS: libnotify, OS X Style
- Senior Perl Developer
- Technical Support Rep
- UX Designer
- RSS Feeds
- Reply to comment | Linux Journal
2 hours 8 min ago
- Reply to comment | Linux Journal
6 hours 8 min ago
- Yeah, user namespaces are
7 hours 24 min ago
- Cari Uang
10 hours 55 min ago
- user namespaces
13 hours 49 min ago
14 hours 15 min ago
- One advantage with VMs
16 hours 43 min ago
- about info
17 hours 16 min ago
17 hours 17 min ago
17 hours 18 min ago
Free Webinar: Hadoop
How to Build an Optimal Hadoop Cluster to Store and Maintain Unlimited Amounts of Data Using Microservers
Realizing the promise of Apache® Hadoop® requires the effective deployment of compute, memory, storage and networking to achieve optimal results. With its flexibility and multitude of options, it is easy to over or under provision the server infrastructure, resulting in poor performance and high TCO. Join us for an in depth, technical discussion with industry experts from leading Hadoop and server companies who will provide insights into the key considerations for designing and deploying an optimal Hadoop cluster.
Some of key questions to be discussed are:
- What is the “typical” Hadoop cluster and what should be installed on the different machine types?
- Why should you consider the typical workload patterns when making your hardware decisions?
- Are all microservers created equal for Hadoop deployments?
- How do I plan for expansion if I require more compute, memory, storage or networking?