netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next-2.6 v2 3/3] sctp: Add a valid address list in association local

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: <EB560391-3EE8-43BB-83A4-DD55352CFEAF@sfc.wide.ad.jp>
Date:	Thu, 14 Apr 2011 11:01:25 +0900
From:	Michio Honda <micchie@....wide.ad.jp>
To:	Wei Yongjun <yjwei@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, lksctp-developers@...ts.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next-2.6 v2 3/3] sctp: Add a valid address list in association local

Hi, 

I implemented that functionality for following situations.  
1. Suppose two associations A and B directed to different destination that belong to the same endpoint.  (one-to-many socket).  
2. After the address addition event, A and B will send an ASCONF.  
3. Suppose only A receives ASCONF-ACK, and B has not received one yet.  
4. In this moment, A can use the new address as the source address for regular chunk, but B can't.  
5. But I think both A and B use the new address even after only A receives ASCONF-ACK  in current SCTP implementation,
This patch achieves that only A uses that new address in this moment.  

Am I missing something?

Thanks,
- Michio

On Apr 14, 2011, at 10:33 , Wei Yongjun wrote:

> 
> 
>> When the SCTP association transmits an ASCONF with ADD_IP_ADDRESS, that association cannot use the adding address until it receives ASCONF-ACK.  
>> This patch prevents that associations that do not receive ASCONF-ACK use the adding address.
> 
> The new adding address is marked SCTP_ADDR_NEW, and cannot use
> in LKSCTP until received ASCONF-ACK and marked as SCTP_ADDR_SRC.
> So, add this valid address list is unnecessary.
> 
> I guess you want to fix the route lookup issue?
> 
> If it is, the only thing we need to fix is the lookup of route. If we can not
> found a valid dst for transport, we can try address marked with SCTP_ADDR_NEW.
> 
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html