linux-kernel - Re: 2.6.24-rc8-mm1 : net tcp

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]

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0801231256360.31652@kivilampi-30.cs.helsinki.fi>
Date:	Wed, 23 Jan 2008 13:01:39 +0200 (EET)
From:	"Ilpo Järvinen" <ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi>
To:	Dave Young <hidave.darkstar@...il.com>
cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: 2.6.24-rc8-mm1 : net tcp_input.c warnings

On Wed, 23 Jan 2008, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:

> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008, Dave Young wrote:
> 
> > On Jan 23, 2008 3:41 PM, Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 22 Jan 2008, David Miller wrote:
> > >
> > > > From: "Dave Young" <hidave.darkstar@...il.com>
> > > > Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 09:44:30 +0800
> > > >
> > > > > On Jan 22, 2008 6:47 PM, Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi> wrote:
> > > > > > [PATCH] [TCP]: debug S+L
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks, If there's new findings I will let you know.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for helping with this bug Dave.
> > >
> > > I noticed btw that there thing might (is likely to) spuriously trigger at
> > > WARN_ON(sacked != tp->sacked_out); because those won't be equal when SACK
> > > is not enabled. If that does happen too often, I send a fixed patch for
> > > it, yet, the fact that I print print tp->rx_opt.sack_ok allows
> > > identification of those cases already as it's zero when SACK is not
> > > enabled.
> > >
> > > Just ask if you need the updated debug patch.
> > 
> > Thanks,  please send, I would like to get it.
> 
> There you go. I fixed non-SACK case by adding tcp_is_sack checks there and 
> also added two verifys to tcp_ack to see if there's corruption outside of 
> TCP.

There's some discussion about a problem that is very likely the same as in 
here (sorry for not remembering to cc you in there due to rapid progress):

   http://marc.info/?t=120107174200003&r=1&w=2


-- 
 i.