linux-kernel - Re: Fwd: Question on SCTP ABORT chunk is generated when the association_max

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:	Fri, 23 Jan 2015 13:30:55 -0500
From:	Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@...il.com>
To:	Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com>
CC:	Sun Paul <paulrbk@...il.com>, linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	tuexen@...muenster.de
Subject: Re: Fwd: Question on SCTP ABORT chunk is generated when the association_max_retrans
 is reached

On 01/23/2015 12:10 PM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> On 01/23/2015 05:05 PM, Vlad Yasevich wrote:
>> On 01/23/2015 06:50 AM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>>> 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.
> 
> I see, commit de4594a51c90 ("sctp: send abort chunk when max_retrans
> exceeded") added the behaviour.
> 
>>> 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.
> 
> So effectively, if I understand the argument from the commit, the
> assumption is that the ABORT would never reach the peer anyway, but
> is a way for tcpdump users to see on the wire that rtx limit has
> been exceeded and since there's not mentioned anything in the RFC
> about this, it doesn't break it. Hm.
> 

Additionally I seem to recall BSD sending this type of ABORT for pretty
much the same reason.

-vlad

> Sun Paul, what exactly broke in your scenario? Can you be more explicit?
> 
> Thanks,
> Daniel

--
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/