netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/2] sctp: HEARTBEAT negotiation after ASCONF

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: <20110619.161034.893667223164209739.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Sun, 19 Jun 2011 16:10:34 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	micchie@....wide.ad.jp
Cc:	yjwei@...fujitsu.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] sctp: HEARTBEAT negotiation after ASCONF

From: Michio Honda <micchie@....wide.ad.jp>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 17:56:42 +0900

> @@ -989,6 +991,8 @@ static int sctp_outq_flush(struct sctp_outq *q, int rtx_timeout)
>  			    ((new_transport->state == SCTP_INACTIVE) ||
>  			     (new_transport->state == SCTP_UNCONFIRMED)))
>  				new_transport = asoc->peer.active_path;
> +			if (new_transport->state == SCTP_UNCONFIRMED) 
> +				continue;
>  
>  			/* Change packets if necessary.  */
>  			if (new_transport != transport) {

This code path uses the asoc->peer.active_path is the new_transport
is in the SCTP_UNCONFIRMED state.  Are you sure your new check is
correct in that case?

Shouldn't you be testing the variable "new_transport" instead?

--
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