netdev - Re: [PATCH 6/6 v8] sctp: Add ASCONF operation on the single-homed host

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4DB92C5D.6000309@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date:	Thu, 28 Apr 2011 16:59:09 +0800
From:	Wei Yongjun <yjwei@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Michio Honda <micchie@....wide.ad.jp>
CC:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6 v8] sctp: Add ASCONF operation on the single-homed
 host


>>>>> +			/* reuse the parameter length from the same scope one */
>>>>> +			totallen += paramlen;
>>>>> +			totallen += addr_param_len;
>>>>> +			del_pickup = 1;
>>>>> +			asoc->src_out_of_asoc_ok = 1;
>>>> src_out_of_asoc_ok should be marked when the last address is
>>>> assigned to asoc->asconf_addr_del_pending?
>>> I thought marking src_out_of_asoc_ok should be set when the candidate new address appears, rather than when the last address is being deleted.  
>>> Because until such address appears, there is no situation to send any chunk from the address not in the association.  
>> The last address have been marked as DEL, will never using
>> for sending chunks. At this time, there is no valid address in the
>> host, chunk can not be send out by host.
> I understand that, marking out_of_asoc_ok at the last address being deleted does same thing.  
> However, out_of_asoc_ok state is not regular, so I think we should shorten that duration as much as possible.  
> But this is my personal opinion, so if you don't think so, I will mark it when the last address being deleted.  

You can do some test about this(I do not test :-) )

remove all the address while data still be sent, wait
some time before the new address is added, and see
whether there is some different between those. Not
sure which or both is right. If it is the same, remain
the code not change.

>>>>> +			SCTP_DEBUG_PRINTK("mkasconf_update_ip: picked same-scope del_pending addr, totallen for all addresses is %d\n", totallen);
>>>>> +		}
>>>>> 	}
>>>>>
>>>>> 	/* Create an asconf chunk with the required length. */
>>>>> @@ -2802,6 +2819,19 @@ struct sctp_chunk *sctp_make_asconf_update_ip(struct sctp_association *asoc,
>>>>>
>>>>> 		addr_buf += af->sockaddr_len;
>>>>> 	}
>>>>> +	if (flags == SCTP_PARAM_ADD_IP && del_pickup) {
>>>>> +		addr = asoc->asconf_addr_del_pending;
>>>>> +		del_af = sctp_get_af_specific(addr->v4.sin_family);
>>>>> +		del_addr_param_len = del_af->to_addr_param(addr,
>>>>> +		    &del_addr_param);
>>>>> +		del_param.param_hdr.type = SCTP_PARAM_DEL_IP;
>>>>> +		del_param.param_hdr.length = htons(del_paramlen +
>>>>> +		    del_addr_param_len);
>>>>> +		del_param.crr_id = i;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +		sctp_addto_chunk(retval, del_paramlen, &del_param);
>>>>> +		sctp_addto_chunk(retval, del_addr_param_len, &del_addr_param);
>>>>> +	}
>>>>> 	return retval;
>>>>> }
>>>> How about clean up this part as:
>>>>
>>>> +       if (...) {
>>>> +               addr = asoc->asconf_addr_del_pending;
>>>> +               af = sctp_get_af_specific(addr->v4.sin_family);
>>>> +               addr_param_len = af->to_addr_param(addr, &addr_param);
>>>> +               totallen += paramlen;
>>>> +               totallen += addr_param_len;
>>>> +		...
>>>> +       }
>>>> +
>>>>      /* Create an asconf chunk with the required length. */
>>>>      retval = sctp_make_asconf(asoc, laddr, totallen);
>>>>      if (!retval)
>>>> @@ -2802,6 +2812,18 @@ struct sctp_chunk *sctp_make_asconf_update_ip(struct sctp_association *asoc,
>>>>
>>>>              addr_buf += af->sockaddr_len;
>>>>      }
>>>> +
>>>> +       if (...) {
>>>> +               addr = asoc->asconf_addr_del_pending;
>>>> +               af = sctp_get_af_specific(addr->v4.sin_family);
>>>> +               addr_param_len = af->to_addr_param(addr, &addr_param);
>>>> +               param.param_hdr.type = SCTP_PARAM_DEL_IP;
>>>> +               param.param_hdr.length = htons(paramlen + addr_param_len);
>>>> +               param.crr_id = i;
>>>> +
>>>> +               sctp_addto_chunk(retval, paramlen, &param);
>>>> +               sctp_addto_chunk(retval, addr_param_len, &addr_param);
>>>> +       }
>>> agreed with reusing af instead of defining del_af.  
>>> --
>>> 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
>
--
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