netdev - Re: [patch] ipvs: off by one in set_sctp

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]

Date:	Mon, 22 Apr 2013 14:47:10 +0530
From:	Moahn Reddy <mohanreddykv@...il.com>
To:	Julian Anastasov <ja@....bg>
CC:	Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>,
	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
	Wensong Zhang <wensong@...ux-vs.org>,
	Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>,
	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	lvs-devel@...r.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org,
	netfilter@...r.kernel.org, coreteam@...filter.org
Subject: Re: [patch] ipvs: off by one in set_sctp_state()

Hi,

I see there is no problem in the code regarding the state change. And 
the thing why I took 255 in the sctp_events array is that as per the 
sctp specification, the 255 message is reserved, so I thought 0 to 254 
messages are enough.

Do you see any problem with the ipvs sctp code in the field?. Please let 
me know if you see any such, I will try to fix.

Thanks,
Mohan

On Monday 22 April 2013 11:33 AM, Julian Anastasov wrote:
> 	Hello,
>
> On Mon, 22 Apr 2013, Simon Horman wrote:
>
>>> 	There are more confusing (still, non-fatal)
>>> problems in this IPVS-SCTP support, eg.
>>>
>>>          if (direction == IP_VS_DIR_OUTPUT)
>>> -               event++;
>>> +               event *= 2;
>>>
>>> 	I guess we are running with wrong timeouts.
>> IMHO there seem to be many problems with SCTP, but it is good to
>> fix the ones we find as we find them.
> 	At the time I found it (during IPVS optimizations
> development), it didn't looked fatal, I preferred to
> allocate more time for SCTP for debugging.
>
>> Would you like to make a patch for the above change or should I?
> 	May be the code is correct, my mistake. I was
> confused from the order in sctp_events[] but ipvs_sctp_event_t
> allocates values for _SER states.
>
>>> 	Also, I'm not sure we support properly the
>>> one-way states as done for TCP (IP_VS_DIR_INPUT_ONLY).
>>> May be this code deserves more serious review, for example,
>>> net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_proto_sctp.c looks as good
>>> source for comparison.
>> I believe it does need a more serious review.
> Regards
>
> --
> Julian Anastasov <ja@....bg>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe lvs-devel" 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