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  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:	Thu, 30 Aug 2007 09:45:22 -0400
From:	Vlad Yasevich <>
To:	Wei Yongjun <>
Subject: Re: [Lksctp-developers] SCTP: Fix dead loop while received unexpected
 chunk with length set to zero

Wei Yongjun wrote:
> Vlad Yasevich wrote:
>> Wei Yongjun wrote:
>>> Vlad Yasevich wrote:
>>>> NACK
>>>> Section 8.4:
>>>>    An SCTP packet is called an "out of the blue" (OOTB) packet if it is
>>>>    correctly formed (i.e., passed the receiver's CRC32c check; see
>>>>    Section 6.8), but the receiver is not able to identify the
>>>>    association to which this packet belongs.
>>>> I would argue that the packet is not correctly formed in this case
>>>> and deserves a protocol violation ABORT in return.
>>>> -vlad
>>> As your comment, patch has been changed.
>>> Patch has been split to two, one is resolve this dead loop problem in
>>> this mail.
>>> And the other is come in another mail to discard partial chunk which
>>> chunk length is set to zero.
>> I am starting to question the entire OOTB packet handling.  There are way
>> too many function that do almost the same thing and all handle OOTB a
>> little
>> different.
>> sctp_sf_do_9_2_reshutack() is also called during sctp_sf_do_dupcook_a()
>> processing, so checking for INIT chunk is wrong.  Checking for just the
>> chunkhdr_t should be enough.
> This has been changed.
>> sctp_sf_tabort_8_4_8 is used directly as well (not just through the state
>> machine).  Not sure if the header verification is appropriate.
> It is needed. Because sctp_sf_tabort_8_4_8() is called to handle OOTB
> packet before check the header length.

But now we are doing the same thing twice (and this is not the only place).
I know I am being really picky here, but I am starting to thing the ootb handling\
is a mess and I really don't want to add to the mess.

Until I (or someone else) prove that it's not a mess or fix it, I am going
to hold off on these patches.

Feel free to go through the spec and fix all the OOTB handling.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists