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: <54C27137.5010405@gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 23 Jan 2015 11:05:11 -0500
From:	Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@...il.com>
To:	Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com>, Sun Paul <paulrbk@...il.com>
CC:	linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Fwd: Question on SCTP ABORT chunk is generated when the association_max_retrans
 is reached

On 01/23/2015 06:50 AM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 01/23/2015 11:25 AM, Sun Paul wrote:
> ...
>> I would like to check the behave in LKSCTP.
>>
>> we are running DIAMETER message over SCTP, and we have set the
>> parameter "net.sctp.association_max_retrans = 4" in the LinuxOS.
>>
>> We noticed that when remote peer have retry to send the same request
>> for 4 times, the LKSCTP will initiate an ABORT chunk with reason
>> "association exceeded its max_retrans count".
>>
>> We would like to know whether this is the correct behavior? is there
>> any other option that we can alter in order to avoid the ABORT chunk
>> being sent?
> 
> I don't recall the RFC saying to send an ABORT, but let me double
> check in the mean time.

The RFC is silent on the matter.  The abort got added in 3.8 so
it's been there for a while.


> 
> Hmm, untested, but could you try something like that?
> 
> diff --git a/net/sctp/sm_sideeffect.c b/net/sctp/sm_sideeffect.c
> index fef2acd..5ce198d 100644
> --- a/net/sctp/sm_sideeffect.c
> +++ b/net/sctp/sm_sideeffect.c
> @@ -584,7 +584,8 @@ static void sctp_cmd_assoc_failed(sctp_cmd_seq_t *commands,
>          sctp_add_cmd_sf(commands, SCTP_CMD_EVENT_ULP,
>                  SCTP_ULPEVENT(event));
> 
> -    if (asoc->overall_error_count >= asoc->max_retrans) {
> +    if (asoc->overall_error_count >= asoc->max_retrans &&
> +        error != SCTP_ERROR_NO_ERROR) {
>          abort = sctp_make_violation_max_retrans(asoc, chunk);
>          if (abort)
>              sctp_add_cmd_sf(commands, SCTP_CMD_REPLY,


This would pretty much stop all ABORTs due to excessive rtx.  Might
as well take the code out :).

I was a bit concerned about this ABORT when it went in.

-vlad
--
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ