netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/1] net: sctp: bug fixing when sctp path recovers

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 13 Nov 2013 09:22:40 -0500
From:	Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@...il.com>
To:	Chang <changxiangzhong@...il.com>, nhorman@...driver.com,
	davem@...emloft.net
CC:	linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dreibh@...ula.no
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] net: sctp: bug fixing when sctp path recovers

On 11/12/2013 09:54 PM, Chang wrote:
>
> On 11/13/2013 03:37 AM, Vlad Yasevich wrote:
>> On 11/12/2013 08:34 PM, Chang Xiangzhong wrote:
>>> Look for the __two__ most recently used path/transport and set to
>>> active_path
>>> and retran_path respectively
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: changxiangzhong@...il.com
>>> ---
>>>   net/sctp/associola.c |    4 ++++
>>>   1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/net/sctp/associola.c b/net/sctp/associola.c
>>> index ab67efc..070011a 100644
>>> --- a/net/sctp/associola.c
>>> +++ b/net/sctp/associola.c
>>> @@ -913,11 +913,15 @@ void sctp_assoc_control_transport(struct
>>> sctp_association *asoc,
>>>           if (!first || t->last_time_heard > first->last_time_heard) {
>>>               second = first;
>>>               first = t;
>>> +            continue;
>>>           }
>>>           if (!second || t->last_time_heard > second->last_time_heard)
>>>               second = t;
>>
>> You might as well remove this bit and then you don't need a continue.
> I don't think we could remove this bit. My understanding of these
> algorithms are to find the 1st recently used path and the 2nd, assigning
> to active_path and retran_path respectively. If we remove the
> looking-for-second block, how are we suppose to find the 2nd?
> I think we can remove the continue and use else-if in the
> 2nd-assignment-block.

Yes, you are right.  An if...else block is what we need here.

-vlad

>>
>>>       }
>>>
>>> +    if (!second)
>>> +        second = first;
>>> +
>>
>> This needs to move down 1 more block.  Set the second transport after we
>> check to see if the primary is back up and we need to go back to using
>> it.
>>
>> -vlad
>>
> I agree with this change
>>>       /* RFC 2960 6.4 Multi-Homed SCTP Endpoints
>>>        *
>>>        * By default, an endpoint should always transmit to the
>>>
>>
>

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html