netdev - Re: [PATCH RESEND] sctp: fix incorrect overflow check on autoclose

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: <4EE7CE80.9050307@hp.com>
Date:	Tue, 13 Dec 2011 17:15:28 -0500
From:	Vladislav Yasevich <vladislav.yasevich@...com>
To:	Xi Wang <xi.wang@...il.com>
CC:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul <andrei@...el.org>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] sctp: fix incorrect overflow check on autoclose

On 12/13/2011 05:00 PM, Xi Wang wrote:
> On Dec 12, 2011, at 5:18 PM, Vladislav Yasevich wrote:
>> Hm..  this is a bit strange.  This makes it so that on 32 bit platforms
>> we have one upper bound for autoclose and on 64 we have another even though
>> the type is platform dependent.  This could be considered a regression by
>> applications.
> 
> Either looks good to me.  Timeout limit is essentially different on 32/64
> platforms.

I don't think it really should be different.  Notice that our rto values
remain consistent.  I really thing that this should be consistent from
the user's point of view.

> 
> Another (probably uglier) option is to limit the value on 32-bit platform
> only, like sock_setsockopt() in net/core/sock.c.
> 
> #if (BITS_PER_LONG == 32)
> 	if (sp->autoclose > MAX_SCHEDULE_TIMEOUT / HZ)
> 		sp->autoclose = MAX_SCHEDULE_TIMEOUT / HZ;
> #endif

I agree, this is ugly.  It might make more sense to define a max autoclose
value and expose it through /sys.  That way the values remains consistent.

-vlad

> 
>> In addition this would result in confusion to user since the values
>> between setsockopt() and getsockopt() for autoclose would be different.
> 
> Are you suggesting to reject the value and return -EINVAL, rather than
> silently limiting the autoclose value?
> 
> - xi
> 

--
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