I am trying to determine which local IP would be used on a socket for a TCP connection towards a given host on Linux, using C.
Let me make an example. I could connect my socket and use getsockname() on the file descriptor to get the local ip (and local TCP port); but can I do this without opening the connection?
I could read the routing table and make a decision based on that - but the networking subsystem must have that algorithm already, for when the connection is actually open. In short, I'd like to know if there is an API to access the routing algorithms without having to parse the rules myself or opening an actual connection. The solution - if any - will probably be Linux only but that's OK.
EDIT: someone on IRC suggested I create a UDP socket and use connect() on it. No network is used at that point but I should be able to use getsockname() on it
The only solution I know to this is what traceroute does. Send a packet with a TTL of 1 and see which interface the ICMP return comes in on. As I recall there are lots of incompatibilities between different hosts, so there's probably several different types of messages you might need to send/receive to get the data you need.
Related
I need to write a proxy server in C language on Linux (Ubuntu 20.04). The purpose of this proxy server is as follows. There're illogical governmental barriers in accessing the free internet. Some are:
Name resolution: I ping telegram.org and many other sites which the government doesn't want me to access. I ask 8.8.8.8 to resolve the name, but they response of behalf of the server that the IP may be resolved to 10.10.34.35!
Let's concentrate on this one, because when this is solved many other problems will be solved too. For this, I need to setup such a configuration:
A server outside of my country is required. I prepared it. It's a VPS. Let's call it RS (Remote Server).
A local proxy server is required. Let's call it PS. PS runs on the local machine (client) and knows RS's IP. I need it to gather all requests going to be sent through the only NIC available on client, process them, scramble them, and send them to RS in a way to be hidden from the government.
The server-side program should be running on RS on a specific port to get the packet, unscramble it, and send it to the internet on behalf of the client. After receiving the response from the internet, it should send it back to the client via the PS.
PS will deliver the response to the client application which originates the request. Of course this happens after it will unscramble and will find the original response from the internet.
This is the design and some parts is remained gloomy for me. Since I'm not an expert in network programming context, I'm going to ask my questions in the parts I'm getting into trouble or are not clear for me.
Now, I'm in part 2. See whether I'm right. There're two types of sockets, a RAW socket and a stream socket. A RAW socket is opened this way:
socket(AF_PACKET, SOCK_RAW, htons(ETH_P_ALL));
And a stream socket is opened this way:
socket(AF_INET, SOCK_STREAM, 0);
For RAW sockets, we use sockaddr_ll and for stream sockets we use sockaddr_in. May I use stream sockets between client applications and PS? I think not, because I need the whole RAW packet. I should know the protocol and maybe some other info of the packet, because the whole packet should be retrieved transparently in RS. For example, I should know whether it has been a ping packet (ICMP) or a web request (TCP). For this, I need to have packet header in PS. So I can't use a stream socket, because it doesn't contain the packet header. But until now, I've used RAW sockets for interfaces and have not written a proxy server to receive RAW packets. Is it possible? In another words, I've the following questions to go to next step:
Can a RAW socket be bound to localhost:port instead of an interface so that it may receive all low-level packets containing packet headers (RAW packets)?
I may define a proxy server for browser. But can I put the whole system behind the proxy server so that packets of other apps like PING may route automatically via it?
Do I really need RAW sockets in PS? Can't I change the design to suffice the data I got from the packets payload?
Maybe I'm wrong in some of the concepts and will appreciate your guidance.
Thank you
Can a RAW socket be bound to localhost:port instead of an interface so that it may receive all low-level packets containing packet headers (RAW packets)?
No, it doesn't make sense. Raw packets don't have port numbers so how would it know which socket to go to?
It looks like you are trying to write a VPN. You can do this on Linux by creating a fake network interface called a "tun interface". You create a tun interface, and whenever Linux tries to send a packet through the interface, instead of going to a network cable, it goes to your program! Then you can do whatever you like with the packet. Of course, it works both ways - you can send packets from your program back to Linux through the tun interface, and Linux will act like they just arrived on a network cable.
Then, you can set up your routing table so that all traffic goes to the tun interface, except for traffic to the VPN server ("RS"), which goes to your real ethernet/wifi interface. Otherwise you'd have an endless loop where your VPN program PS tried to send packets to RS but they just went back to PS.
I have a linux computer with a code in C that must communicate in UDP with 4 differents equipments. The computer sends differents commands to each equipment and receives responses, sometimes in parallel ...
I am a perfect beginner, and managed to communicate with one equipment using UDP socket. But now, i'm looking for a way to communicate with all these equipments, what i would like to call "multiple socket", but i don't know where to look/ what word to search to find a way ...
My linux computer is the client and all the equipment servers. I only have one eth port on the computer and will have to use a switch to have access to all the equipment. I would like to create functions like :
sendcmd(IPnumber, PORTnumber, cmd , ...)
readbuff(IPnumber, PORTnumber, buff, ...)
so i can choose which IP will received cmd ... i don't know if it's possible or if i need to open the socket, then close and redo the operation with another IP ...
So, if I ever managed to make myself understood, where should I look for a solution to my problem?
Thank you !
You can use a single UDP socket for your scenario. You can keep the socket open for the lifetime of your application.
UDP is not connection oriented. UDP sockets are also not classified into client sockets and server sockets. UDP sockets are always bound to a local port, either implicitly (typically for pure clients) or explicitly (which is usually the case for servers). In your case you do not care about the port for your UDP client.
To send to your four UDP server you can use sendto(). This lets you specify the destination IP address and port the UDP packet gets sent to.
To receive from your four UDP servers you can use recvfrom(). This will tell the IP address and port where the UDP packet came from.
You most likely want to have a receive loop of some kind. If you want to do anything else in your application you most likely want to either make recvfrom() non-blocking or you want to have the receive loop in its own thread. But this goes beyond your question.
The most important aspect of UDP is that it is not a protocol (despite its name which is misleading). It is one puzzle piece for a protocol. It is a tool to develop your own protocol. But I assume you already have a specific protocol at hand defined by your peripherals.
There's already a question How exactly does a remote program like team viewer work which gives a basic description, but I'm interested in how the comms works once the client has registered with the server. If the client is behind a NAT then it won't have its own IP address so how can the server (or another client) send a message to it? Or does the client just keep polling the server to see if its got any requests?
Are there any open source equivalents of LogMeIn or TeamViewer?
The simplest and most reliable way (although not always the most efficient) is to have each client make an outgoing TCP connection to a well-known server somewhere and keep that connection open. As long as the TCP connection is open, data can pass over that TCP connection in either direction at any time. It appears that both LogMeIn and TeamViewer use this method, at least as a fall-back. The main drawbacks for this technique are that all data has to pass through a TeamViewer/LogMeIn company server (which can become a bottleneck), and that TCP doesn't handle dropped packets very well -- it will stall and wait for the dropped packets to be resent, rather than giving up on them and sending newer data instead.
The other technique that they can sometimes use (in order to get better performance) is UDP hole-punching. That technique relies on the fact that many firewalls will accept incoming UDP packets from remote hosts that the firewalled-host has recently sent an outgoing UDP packet to. Given that, the TeamViewer/LogMeIn company's server can tell both clients to send an outgoing packet to the IP address of the other client's firewall, and after that (hopefully) each firewall will accept UDP packets from the other client's Internet-facing IP address. This doesn't always work, though, since different firewalls work in different ways and may not include the aforementioned UDP-allowing logic.
I've not a clear idea about when I have to use the bind() function.
I guess it should be used whenever I need to receive data (i.e. recv() or recvfrom() functions) whether I'm using TCP or UDP, but somebody told me this is not the case.
Can anyone clarify a bit?
EDIT I've read the answers but actually I'm not so clear. Let's take an example where I have an UDP client which sends the data to the server and then has to get a response. I have to use bind here, right?
This answer is a little bit long-winded, but I think it will help.
When we do computer networking, we're really just doing inter-process communication. Lets say on your own computer you had two programs that wanted to talk to each other. You might use pipe to send the data from one program to another. When you say ls | grep pdf you are taking the output of ls and feeding it into grep. In this way, you have unidirectional communication between the two separate programs ls and grep.
When you do this, someone needs to keep track of the Process ID (PID) of each process. That PID is a unique identifier for each process and it helps us track who the "source" and "destination" processes are for the data we want to transfer.
So now lets say you have data from a webserver than you want to transfer to a browser. Well, this is the same scenario as above - interprocess communication between two programs, the "server" and "browser".
Except this time those two programs are on different computers. The mechanism for interprocess communication across two computers are called "sockets".
So great. You take some data, lob it over the wire, and the other computer receives it. Except that computer doesn't know what to do with that data. Remember we said we need a PID to know which processes are communicating? The same is true in networking. When your computer receives HTML data, how does it know to send it to "firefox" rather than "pidgin"?
Well when you transmit network data, you specify that it goes on a specific "port". Port 80 is usually used for web, port 25 for telnet, port 443 for HTTPS, etc.
And that "port" is bound to a specific process ID on the machine. This is why we have ports. This is why we use bind(). In order to tell the sender which process should receive our data.
This should explain the answers people have posted. If you are a sender, you don't care what the outgoing port is, so you usually don't use bind() to specify that port. If you are a receiver, well, everyone else has to know where to look for you. So you bind() your program to port 80 and then tell everyone to make sure to transmit data there.
To answer your hw question, yes, your probably want to use bind() for your server. But the clients don't need to use bind() - they just need to make sure they transmit data to whatever port you've chosen.
After reading your updated question. I would suggest not to use bind() function while making client calls. The function is used, while writing your own server, to bind the socket (created after making a call to socket()) to a physical address.
For further help look at this tutorial
bind() is useful when you are writing a server which awaits data from clients by "listening" to a known port. With bind() you are able to set the port on which you will listen() with the same socket.
If you are writing the client, it is not needed for you to call bind() -- you can simply call recv() to obtain the data sent from the server. Your local port will be set to an "ephemeral" value when the TCP connection is established.
You use bind whenever you want to bind to a local address. You mostly use this for opening a listening socket on a specific address/port, but it can also be used to fix the address/port of an outgoing TCP connection.
you need to call bind() only in your server. It's needed especially for binding a #port to your socket.
I am currently working on a programming assignment. The assignment is to implement a client,network emulator, and server. The client passes packets to a network emulator, and the network emulator passes to the server. Vice-versa applies as well. The prerequisite for the assignment is that I may only use raw sockets. So I will create my own IP and UDP headers. I have tested my packets with wireshark. They are all correct and in the proper format(it reads them properly).
Another requirement is that the emulator, client and server all have specific ports they must be bound to. Now, I do not understand how to bind a raw socket to a specific port. All my raw sockets receive all traffic on the host address they are bound to. According to man pages, and everywhere else on the internet, including "Unix Network Programming" by Richard Stevens, this is how they are supposed to work. My teacher has not responded to any of my emails and I probably will not be able to ask him until Tuesday.I see two options in front of me. First I can use libpcap to filter from a specific device and then output to my raw socket. I feel this is way out of scope for our assignment though. Or I can filter them after I receive them from the socket. This apparently has a lot of overhead because all the packets are being copied/moved through the kernel. At least, that is my understanding(please feel free to correct me if i'm wrong).
So my question is:
Is their an option or something I can set for this? Where the raw socket will bind to a port? Have I missed something obvious?
Thank you for your time.
--
The man page for raw(7) says:
A raw socket can be bound to a specific local address using the bind(2) call. If it isn't bound all packets with the specified IP protocol are received. In addition a RAW socket can be bound to a specific network device using SO_BINDTODEVICE; see socket(7).
Edit: You cannot bind a raw socket to a specific port because "port" is a concept in TCP and UDP, not IP. Look at the header diagrams for those three protocols and it should become obvious: you are working at a lower level, where the concept of port is not known.
I would think you're expected to filter the packets in your software. It sounds like the exercise is to learn what the different components of the IP stack do by recreating a simplified piece of it in user space. Normally in the kernel, the IP code would process all packets, verify the IP headers, reassemble fragments, and check the protocol field. If the protocol field is 17 (udp), then it passes it to the UDP code (every UDP packet). It's up to the UDP code to then validate the UDP header and determine if any applications are interested in them based on the destination port.
I imagine your project is expected to more or less mimic this process. Obviously none of it will be as efficient as doing it in the kernel, but since the assignment is to write (part of) an IP stack in user-space, I'd guess efficiency isn't the point of the exercise.