Brad Fitzpatrick
ec5d51098a
When two connections share a node key, they form a dup client set and noteClientActivity records each sending connection in the set's sendHistory. It appended on every frame whenever the sender was not the immediately previous one, and nothing trimmed the slice while both connections stayed alive. Two connections taking turns sending therefore grew sendHistory by one *sclient per frame without bound. Under the default lastWriterIsActive policy nothing ever stops that growth, so a malicious client (which controls its own node key) or a buggy one that keeps two connections alive and both sending could leak server memory, roughly 8 bytes per frame, for the life of the connection pair. Record the sender by moving it to the end of sendHistory and dropping any earlier occurrence, so each connection appears at most once and the slice stays bounded by the number of connections in the set. This preserves the existing behavior: the fighting check under disableFighters still runs before the move and still disables everyone on the first repeat, and removeClient still promotes the previous speaker from the slice tail. Fixes tailscale/corp#48884 Change-Id: I06198178e6ab0d7e2f04c1dc4c09eafcb16ace46 Signed-off-by: Brad Fitzpatrick <bradfitz@tailscale.com>
DERP
This directory (and subdirectories) contain the DERP code. The server itself is
in ../cmd/derper.
DERP is a packet relay system (client and servers) where peers are addressed using WireGuard public keys instead of IP addresses.
It relays two types of packets:
-
"Disco" discovery messages (see
../disco) as the a side channel during NAT traversal. -
Encrypted WireGuard packets as the fallback of last resort when UDP is blocked or NAT traversal fails.
DERP Map
Each client receives a "DERP Map" from the coordination server describing the DERP servers the client should try to use.
The client picks its home "DERP home" based on latency. This is done to keep costs low by avoid using cloud load balancers (pricey) or anycast, which would necessarily require server-side routing between DERP regions.
Clients pick their DERP home and report it to the coordination server which shares it to all the peers in the tailnet. When a peer wants to send a packet and it doesn't already have a WireGuard session open, it sends disco messages (some direct, and some over DERP), trying to do the NAT traversal. The client will make connections to multiple DERP regions as needed. Only the DERP home region connection needs to be alive forever.
DERP Regions
Tailscale runs 1 or more DERP nodes (instances of cmd/derper) in various
geographic regions to make sure users have low latency to their DERP home.
Regions generally have multiple nodes per region "meshed" (routing to each
other) together for redundancy: it allows for cloud failures or upgrades without
kicking users out to a higher latency region. Instead, clients will reconnect to
the next node in the region. Each node in the region is required to be meshed
with every other node in the region and forward packets to the other nodes in
the region. Packets are forwarded only one hop within the region. There is no
routing between regions. The assumption is that the mesh TCP connections are
over a VPC that's very fast, low latency, and not charged per byte. The
coordination server assigns the list of nodes in a region as a function of the
tailnet, so all nodes within a tailnet should generally be on the same node and
not require forwarding. Only after a failure do clients of a particular tailnet
get split between nodes in a region and require inter-node forwarding. But over
time it balances back out. There's also an admin-only DERP frame type to force
close the TCP connection of a particular client to force them to reconnect to
their primary if the operator wants to force things to balance out sooner.
(Using the (*derphttp.Client).ClosePeer method, as used by Tailscale's
internal rarely-used cmd/derpprune maintenance tool)
We generally run a minimum of three nodes in a region not for quorum reasons (there's no voting) but just because two is too uncomfortably few for cascading failure reasons: if you're running two nodes at 51% load (CPU, memory, etc) and then one fails, that makes the second one fail. With three or more nodes, you can run each node a bit hotter.