netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 0/5] SCTP updates

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, 9 Jul 2014 18:12:44 +0200
From:	Michael Tuexen <Michael.Tuexen@...chi.franken.de>
To:	David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
Cc:	Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>,
	Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@...il.com>,
	Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com>,
	"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	"geirola@...il.com" <geirola@...il.com>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org" <linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/5] SCTP updates

On 09 Jul 2014, at 18:02, David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM> wrote:

> From: Neil Horman
> ...
>>> The problem here is deprecation of ancillary data and that's is a lot tougher
>>> then socket options.  In this particular case (SCTP_SNDRCVINFO vs SCTP_RCVINFO),
>>> I don't think there is any way to deprecate the SCTP_SNDRCVINFO since the event
>>> enabling it is the same as the one for SCTP_RCVINFO.  This was a mistake in the
I don't think this is true:
To request SCTP_SNDRCVINFO you use the SCTP_EVENTS option. See
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6458#section-6.2.1
To request the SCTP_RCVINFO you use the SCTP_RECVRCVINFO option. See
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6458#section-8.1.29
So the user does different things and the kernel can provide the requested
information.

Best regards
Michael
>>> spec.  Ancillary data should not have been enabled using even notification api,
>>> as it is not an event, but we now have to live with it.
>>> 
>> Ugh I didn't even consider cmsg type overlap.  Thats probably it then, we can't
>> deprecate it.  Though that does call the question up as to how to differentiate
>> expectations of the data format for each cmsg, if they use the same type.  Does
>> the SCTP_RCVINFO data struct overlay the SNDRCVINFO struct exactly?  (sorry I've
>> not checked myself yet).
> 
> Not from what I remember from when I read that RFC.
> I think the lengths are different enough to determine which is which.
> 
> That RFC (I've forgotten the number) looks like an entire bag of poo
> that should be ignored...
> 
> 	David
> 
> 
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sctp" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> 

--
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