[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20120920.173150.1701050165912197082.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 17:31:50 -0400 (EDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] tcp: use of undefined variable
From: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 15:46:06 +0100
> From: Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>
>
> Both tcp_timewait_state_process and tcp_check_req use the same basic
> construct of
>
> struct tcp_options received tmp_opt;
> tmp_opt.saw_tstamp = 0;
>
> then call
>
> tcp_parse_options
>
> However if they are fed a frame containing a TCP_SACK then tbe code
> behaviour is undefined because opt_rx->sack_ok is undefined data.
>
> This ought to be documented if it is intentional.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>
Applied to net-next, except I took this hunk out:
> @@ -96,6 +98,7 @@ tcp_timewait_state_process(struct inet_timewait_sock *tw, struct sk_buff *skb,
> bool paws_reject = false;
>
> tmp_opt.saw_tstamp = 0;
> +
> if (th->doff > (sizeof(*th) >> 2) && tcptw->tw_ts_recent_stamp) {
> tcp_parse_options(skb, &tmp_opt, &hash_location, 0, NULL);
>
Since it's unrelated to your change, and if you were going to do this in
tcp_timewait_state_process() you should do it in tcp_check_req() as well
since the code is identical.
Longer term maybe we probably should add a
tcp_minisock_parse_options() that elides TCP_SACK and other bits these
cases do not want.
Thanks Alan.
--
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists