netdev - Re: [PATCH net] sctp: change to use TCP_CLOSE_WAIT as SCTP_SS

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:	Mon, 1 Aug 2016 08:41:17 -0300
From:	marcelo.leitner@...il.com
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	lucien.xin@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org, vyasevich@...il.com,
	daniel@...earbox.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] sctp: change to use TCP_CLOSE_WAIT as SCTP_SS_CLOSING

On Sat, Jul 30, 2016 at 10:08:03PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@...il.com>
> Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2016 10:25:35 -0300
> 
> > On Sat, Jul 30, 2016 at 08:00:45PM +0800, Xin Long wrote:
> >> Prior to this patch, sctp defined TCP_CLOSING as SCTP_SS_CLOSING.
> >> TCP_CLOSING is such a special sk state in TCP that inet common codes
> >> even exclude it.
> >> 
> >> For instance, inet_accept thinks the accept sk's state never be
> >> TCP_CLOSING, or it will give a WARN_ON. TCP works well with that
> >> while SCTP may trigger the call trace, as CLOSING state in SCTP
> >> has different meaning from TCP.
> >> 
> >> This fix is to change to use TCP_CLOSE_WAIT as SCTP_SS_CLOSING,
> >> instead of TCP_CLOSING. Some side-effects could be expected,
> >> regardless of not being used before. inet_accept will accept it
> >> now.
> >> 
> >> I did all the func_tests in lksctp-tools and ran sctp codnomicon
> >> fuzzer tests against this patch, no regression or failure found.
> >> 
> >> Signed-off-by: Xin Long <lucien.xin@...il.com>
> > 
> > I don't think this is -net material. It's a one line change but a core
> > one.
> > Dave please consider it for net-next instead.
> > Though, Xin you may need to re-post later..
> > 
> > Acked-by: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@...il.com>
> 
> But, the commit log message says that inet_accept() will generate
> a WARN_ON() call trace without this change.  That makes it sound
> like it's 'net' material to me.
> 

That's right, it will fix a WARN_ON(). I just feel that this change is
too intrusive for -net. But if you think it's okay, okay then.

  Marcelo