linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sctp: Make "Invalid Stream Identifier" ERROR follows SACK when bundling

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20120725111537.GA4366@hmsreliant.think-freely.org>
Date:	Wed, 25 Jul 2012 07:15:37 -0400
From:	Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>
To:	Xufeng Zhang <xufengzhang.main@...il.com>
Cc:	xufeng zhang <xufeng.zhang@...driver.com>, vyasevich@...il.com,
	sri@...ibm.com, davem@...emloft.net, linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sctp: Make "Invalid Stream Identifier" ERROR follows
 SACK when bundling

On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 10:34:32AM +0800, Xufeng Zhang wrote:
> On 7/24/12, Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 09:50:18AM +0800, xufeng zhang wrote:
> >> On 07/23/2012 08:14 PM, Neil Horman wrote:
> >> >On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 10:30:34AM +0800, xufeng zhang wrote:
> >> >>On 07/23/2012 08:49 AM, Neil Horman wrote:
> >> >>>Not sure I understand how you came into this error.  If we get an
> >> >>> invalid
> >> >>>stream, we issue an SCTP_REPORT_TSN side effect, followed by an
> >> >>> SCTP_CMD_REPLY
> >> >>>which sends the error chunk.  The reply goes through
> >> >>>sctp_outq_tail->sctp_outq_chunk->sctp_outq_transmit_chunk->sctp_outq_append_chunk.
> >> >>>That last function checks to see if a sack is already part of the
> >> >>> packet, and if
> >> >>>there isn't one, appends one, using the updated tsn map.
> >> >>Yes, you are right, but consider the invalid stream identifier's
> >> >>DATA chunk is the first
> >> >>DATA chunk in the association which will need SACK immediately.
> >> >>Here is what I thought of the scenario:
> >> >>     sctp_sf_eat_data_6_2()
> >> >>         -->sctp_eat_data()
> >> >>             -->sctp_make_op_error()
> >> >>             -->sctp_add_cmd_sf(commands, SCTP_CMD_REPLY,
> >> >> SCTP_CHUNK(err))
> >> >>             -->sctp_outq_tail()          /* First enqueue ERROR chunk
> >> >> */
> >> >>         -->sctp_add_cmd_sf(commands, SCTP_CMD_GEN_SACK, SCTP_FORCE())
> >> >>             -->sctp_gen_sack()
> >> >>                 -->sctp_make_sack()
> >> >>                 -->sctp_add_cmd_sf(commands, SCTP_CMD_REPLY,
> >> >>SCTP_CHUNK(sack))
> >> >>                 -->sctp_outq_tail()          /* Then enqueue SACK chunk
> >> >> */
> >> >>
> >> >>So SACK chunk is enqueued after ERROR chunk.
> >> >Ah, I see.  Since the ERROR and SACK chunks are both control chunks, and
> >> > since
> >> >we explicitly add the SACK to the control queue instead of going through
> >> > the
> >> >bundle path in sctp_packet_append_chunk the ordering gets wrong.
> >> >
> >> >Ok, so the problem makes sense.  I think the soultion could be alot
> >> > easier
> >> >though.  IIRC SACK chunks always live at the head of a packet, so why not
> >> > just
> >> >special case it in sctp_outq_tail?  I.e. instead of doing a
> >> > list_add_tail, in
> >> >the else clause of sctp_outq_tail check the chunk_hdr->type to see if
> >> > its
> >> >SCTP_CID_SACK.  If it is, use list_add_head rather than list_add_tail.  I
> >> > think
> >> >that will fix up both the COOKIE_ECHO and ESTABLISHED cases, won't it?
> >> > And then
> >> >you won't have keep track of extra state in the packet configuration.
> >> Yes, it's a good idea, but I think the premise is not correct:
> >> RFC 4960 page 57:
> >> "D) Upon reception of the COOKIE ECHO chunk, endpoint "Z" will reply
> >>    with a COOKIE ACK chunk after building a TCB and moving to the
> >>    ESTABLISHED state. A COOKIE ACK chunk may be bundled with any
> >>    pending DATA chunks (and/or SACK chunks), *but the COOKIE ACK chunk
> >>    MUST be the first chunk in the packet*."
> >>
> >> So we can't put SACK chunk always at the head of the packet.
> >>
> > Ok, Fair point, but that just changes the ordering a bit to:
> > COOKIE_ACK
> > SACK
> > OTHER CONTROL CHUNKS
> >
> > What about something like this?  Its completely untested, and I'm sure it
> > can be
> > cleaned up a bunch, but this keeps us from having to add additional state to
> > the
> > packet structure.
> Yeah! I like this modification, thank you very much for your work!
> I'll try to send a V2 patch based on your changes and run some tests.
> 
Awesome, thank you!
Neil

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/